Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered upon Monday 28 October.

BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Orders read for consideration of motions.

To be considered upon Monday.

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 29 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Civil Defence Volunteers (Working Party)

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite a member of the Devon county council emergency staff to join the working party considering the standardisation of training of civil defence volunteers.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): Devon county council is already represented on the working party through the chief fire officer.

Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that the county of Devon probably has the largest and most efficient of all the emergency, volunteer and civil defence services, and that, with the experience that it has acquired during the years from the Lynmouth floods, the Torrey Canyon and the fact that almost all transatlantic aircraft home in on the beacon at Combe Martin, it should have full representation, as being both efficient and on the spot?

Mr. Shaw: I am indeed aware that Devon county council has a volunteer strength of about 1,800 souls, including my hon. Friend, and that it is a fine and

distinguished body. As my hon. Friend knows, there are 13,000 volunteers nationally. I am convinced that the representation of the chief fire officer, who also has rescue services in hand, is highly appropriate to the working of the committee.

Mr. Merchant: In considering the matter, will my hon. Friend also investigate the training and provision of civil defence in the Tyne and Wear county area, where the latest reports show——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are later questions about that.

Drug Enforcement

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are currently employed in drug enforcement duties; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): On 1 January there were 630 police officers in England and Wales assigned full time to force drug squads, and in many forces increases have been made since then. Regional crime squads also devote much of their time to drugs investigations. My right hon. and learned Friend, the then Home Secretary, announced on 18 July substantial new measures, including provision for some 200 additional officers, to strengthen the drugs wings of regional crime squads.

Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the Government's initiatives in recent months to step up the war against drug pedlars, but does he agree that the drugs problem is far more serious than many people realise? Can he assure me that an appropriate number of police officers will be put on to drug enforcement duties, whatever the cost, and that they will not be taken from other pressing areas of police work?

Mr. Hurd: The announcements that my predecessor made, and what I said about the Metropolitan police on Monday, show that that is being given priority. That also applies to Scotland.

Mr. Nellist: Given the prominence of the question of drug abuse at the Tory party conference, why are there 1,000 fewer Customs officials now than some years ago? Does the Home Secretary agree with the views of the vice chairman of the Coventry, South-East Tory party, Mr. Jon Farmer, who said:
Drug addiction is a self-inflicted wound, so why should we worry if they die or not? After all, the cost of a coffin is less than the cost of putting these characters right."?
Is that the Tory solution to drug abuse?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is introducing into his figures people who have nothing to do with drugs. Within the Customs and Excise there has been an increasing concentration of experts dealing specifically with drugs. My hon. Friend the Minister this month announced a further increase of 150 preventive staff.
It is worth informing the House that last year 360 kilos of herion were seized, 50 per cent. more than in 1983, and almost as much as in the whole of the United States. That shows the increasing success of our current effort.

Mr. Colvin: During the course of their drug enforcement duties, police officers frequently visit public


houses. Has my right hon. Friend seen the brief prepared jointly by the Brewers' Society, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and the National Association of Licensed House Managers on the subject of drug abuse, which shows the responsible way in which the licensed trade is responding to the problems of drug abuse and helping the police with their duties?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen the initiative, and I welcome it because—as they say in their message to all licensees—pubs, bars and similar premises can easily become vulnerable targets for this evil trade.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Home Secretary wholly satisfied with the efforts being made by Customs and Excise to assist the police in the detection of the importation of drugs? If not, what further steps will he take?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that it is the Government's intention to shift the burden of proof so that those who are arrested for the possession of large quantities of drugs, and who have substantial assets, will have to persuade the courts that those assets were not obtained from the sale of drugs?

Mr. Hurd: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, one can never be wholly satisfied about these matters. On 18 July my predecessor announced that Mr. Hewitt had been appointed as national drugs intelligence co-ordinator to pull together the efforts being made. He has already started work.
On the second point, the hon. and learned Gentleman had better await the publication of the Bill that we shall soon be producing on this subject.

Mr. Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the principle of community policing does not mean that in areas such as Handsworth the police can turn a blind eye to the possession of soft drugs?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend had had the advantage of listening to me last night—and had he been able to hear what I was saying—he would have heard me deal with the subject. I agree with him that community policing is not a synonym for the absence of law enforcement.

Mr. Soley: To alleviate the pressure on the police, will the Home Secretary give a clear guarantee to the House that the mobile task forces in Customs and Excise that deal with drug smuggling will not be stood down because of the cash restrictions that are likely to be placed upon them?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that they will not be, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, he should do so with the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the numbers that he has quoted today, the task of handling the problem falls on the whole of the police force? Does he accept that that increased responsibility must be seen in the context of other growing tasks for the police under, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Transport Acts? Will he bear that in mind when reviews on the manning of police forces come to his attention in the coming months?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. Unfortunately, there is a link between drug trafficking and other sorts of crime, for reasons which we all know. That

is one reason why the police are giving the matter such priority, and why we give it priority when we allocate resources.

Visitors (Statistics)

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors were refused admission in the last 12 months; and how many of these came from the New Commonwealth or Pakistan.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): In the 12 months ending August 1985, 17,624 people were refused leave to enter, of whom 9,533 were citizens of New Commonwealth countries or Pakistan. Statistics on those refused entry do not identify would-be visitors. To put these figures in context, 8 million passengers were granted leave to enter in the 12 months up to April, of whom 1 million were from the New Commonwealth or Pakistan.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister accept that the existing arrangements for family visits from the Indian subcontinent are not acceptable? Is he aware that at least 20 times each week in my constituency I am telephoned because people are being held at the airport for eight or 12 hours? They are often refused entry simply because they come from a poor background. They are allowed in only through the cumbersome procedure that involves my writing to the Minister. Those people always return home at the end of their visit. Does he understand that my constituents feel that they are put through a humiliating process simply to visit their families? It is not good enough.

Mr. Waddington: The arrangements are not working as well as they might, partly because some hon. Members are abusing their right to make representations in cases. Recently, cases have come to my attention where hon. Members have actually invited people to come to this country, knowing that they had no claim to enter, telling them that they need only mention the name of the hon. Member and temporary admission would be obtained for them. That is highly unsatisfactory, and I hope that hon. Members will not make our task in the immigration service impossible. In 1980, representations were made by hon. Members in 1,000 cases. We estimate that in 1985 representations will have been made in 4,500 cases. The same standards are being applied by immigration officers, as the percentage of refusals have hardly deviated over the years.

Mr. Kaufman: Really!

Mr. Waddington: In view of what I have said, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his hon. Friends can draw their own conclusions.

Mr. Spencer: Is it not a fact that the number of people granted temporary admission this year will be twice the number granted temporary admission in the last year of the Labour Government? Does that not give the lie to the suggestion that there is something draconian about the way in which our immigration policy is being applied?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In fact, we have been employing a more relaxed policy in respect of temporary admission. I must hammer home the point that our system of representations


being made in these cases by hon. Members will not work if some hon. Members continue to behave in a manner that was never envisaged when the system was set up in the first place.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members would have more confidence in the system if they thought that on many occasions the reasons given for refusal were acceptable? How many of those granted temporary admission are granted a visa at the end of that time? How many of them abscond or disappear? If the temporary admission system is designed to prevent the fraudulent use of the appeal system, overstaying, and so on, the fact that, I understand, few people disappear or otherwise abuse the system shows that too many innocent people are refused admission at the ports.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should table specific questions to obtain the answers that he requires. Any fair-minded hon. Member looking at the letters that I write explaining why people have been refused entry will recognise at once that our immigration officers are carrying out their job in a perfectly respectable and proper fashion. As I said, some hon. Members are making our task extremely difficult.

Mr. Dickens: Without mincing words, is it not a fact that many hon. Members, sometimes innocently, aid and abet the illegal entry of visitors into the United Kingdom? Is there not a strong case for the whole procedure of hon. Members raising the cases of visitors to this country with the Home Secretary being seriously reviewed and a new system introduced?

Mr. Waddington: I shall not adopt the words used by my hon. Friend, but the vast majority of people in Britain would be amazed to learn that 4,500 people will get into this country this year, having been refused admission by skilled immigration officers who believed that they were not qualified to enter. The vast majority of British people must be amazed to learn that the system is being used by hon. Members in such a way as to allow vast numbers of people to enter who clearly are not qualified to enter.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that he cannot shelter an unacceptable policy by attacking hon. Members? People are perfectly aware of what he is doing. Has the policy on visitors from Bangladesh altered recently? Is he aware that many of us are getting representations from increasing numbers of visitors from Bangladesh who have been refused admission? Moreover, so many of them are being detained that Harmondsworth is full and people are being held in Ashford remand centre? Has there been a change in policy, and, if so, why?

Mr. Waddington: The policy on the representations of Members of Parliament is reasonable, provided hon. Members are prepared to operate it in a sensible and responsible fashion. Unfortunately, some hon. Members are not. Recently, a large number of young men have been arriving at Heathrow from Bangladesh in most suspicious circumstances, which have resulted in our detention facilities being very strained. Something fishy is going on. So far we have not identified the species, but I hope that the message goes back to the operators in Bangladesh that they have been rumbled.

Drug-related Offences (Confiscation of Assets)

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to seek additional powers to confiscate assets obtained as a result of drug-related offences.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Yes, Sir. We intend to introduce legislation very shortly to provide new powers for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my hon. Friend's proposals will have widespread support from both sides of the House. Is he aware that the flood of drug addiction, abuse and peddling now affects not only inner-city areas but rural areas, such as Dorset? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues support the setting up of drug rehabilitation centres in areas such as Dorset?

Mr. Mellor: I know that my hon. Friend will have heard my announcement earlier this month that further funds from the DHSS by way of direct intervention to improve treatment facilities are being provided. I know that my hon. Friend will want to pursue that matter with his district and regional health authorities, most of which are funded for growth and should make a fair proportion of that funding available to improve facilities in this important sector.

Mr. J Enoch Powell: However strong and justified the public reprobation of drug offences, will the Government hesitate long before reintroducing the long disused penalty of confiscation in circumstances that bear no relationship to the confiscation of gear and other material that has been used in the commission of an offence?

Mr. Mellor: The House will want to consider these matters with care when the Bill is introduced. However, the reality of drug trafficking is that so vast are the profits to be made by the people at the Lop of the trade that merely sending them to prison is not a sufficient deterrent if, as is the position in a number of celebrated cases, they have millions of pounds stashed away in bank accounts around the world on which to live a life of ease and luxury when they are released from prison. None of us wants to reach for draconian measures, but the scale of the international problem posed by major drug traffickers merits this. That is the case that I shall put before the House in due course.

Mr. Sackville: Will not additional powers for confiscation be rendered less effective in the absence of additional powers for tracing, including the requisition of records of financial institutions, domestically and by agreement with other countries?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend, as always on this subject, is absolutely right. New powers will be brought forward in the context of the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that the main reason for his consideration of these measures is that there is no proper Customs cover at the ports of entry? Is he aware that four newly-appointed Customs officers at Dover, whose duties specifically related to drugs, have been snatched back for static duties, and that a recent review of training in Customs has reported that training is inadequate at all levels?

Mr. Mellor: There is something rather discreditable about the the way in which the Customs officers' union has put forward a completely false picture of Customs efficiency. It knows only too well that the reduction of 1,000 in the number of staff dealing with Customs is completely inaccurate. The overall reduction in uniformed and preventive staff will be about 350 by the end of the year. That will be matched by more than a doubling of the number of men involved in intelligence work. Customs wish to move away from one readily predictable check in the green and red channels, for which every drug smuggler is prepared, to better ways of getting to the men behind the trade rather than to those who are just running the drugs. They want also to be better able to intercept the drugs at an unpredictable point. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amount of drugs seized, the number of conspiracies broken up and the number of people who have been brought to book, he will see that Customs and the police, working together, are getting a great deal better. This "knocking" by their union is not in the interests of the men themselves.

Mr. Lawler: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to join me in congratulating the BBC on its Radio 1 drug alert initiative, during which 3,500 young people and parents contacted Radio 1. Does that not show that there is a great need for more information at local level about how addicts and their parents can obtain advice and help?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the Government were able to make money available for the production of some literature that was associated with the Radio 1 campaign. The reasonable view taken by the media of the campaign against drugs has been of great help in putting drugs high on the agenda in discussions among families throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Government have made 4 million leaflets available for parents. We intend to pursue our campaign of warning people, on the basis that, unless the whole community is mobilised in the campaign against drugs, we cannot succeed.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Under-Secretary of State, with his specialised knowledge of the drugs problem, be a little more forthcoming than the Home Secretary and tell us what the Government propose to do about the problem of the burden of proof, which he knows causes severe difficulty in relation to the confiscation of assets in drugs cases?

Mr. Mellor: I shall happily repeat what I said earlier this month in Blackpool. After conviction, either for drug trafficking or for the new offence of handling the proceeds of drug trafficking, on the normal burden of proof — namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty—we propose that all of the property of that individual shall be deemed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, unless the contrary can be proved. That is quite different from reversing the burden of proof on the principal issue of guilt or innocence. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it is difficult for the prosecution to demonstrate where the house in Hampstead and the Rolls-Royce came from, but if the trafficker can afford them from the sale of brushes, presumably he can demonstrate it.

Prisoners (Statistics)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women are in prison at present.

Mr. Hurd: On 18 October 1985 there were 45,404 males and 1,583 females held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are much too high? Does he believe that it is either necessary or desirable to lock up so many people in prison?

Mr. Hurd: The figures have increased because of a surge in the first part of this year. The increase is the result of separate decisions in separate courts, but I agree that it is a disturbing surge. Since then there has been some relief, or some pause, but we cannot be in the least bit complacent about it.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, Mr. Tony Mycock, has just served two years of a five-year sentence for an alleged burglary? Is he further aware that the BBC programme "Rough Justice" has evidence to prove that no such crime was ever committed and that the lady who made the allegations in the first place, a Miss Fitzpatrick, who is now living in America, has said that the whole affair was a figment of her imagination? Does he agree with Lord Devlin and the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E Gardner) that Tony Mycock is completely innocent of any crime? Can he tell the House exactly what he will do to ensure that Mr. Mycock, an innocent man, is released immediately—I repeat "immediately"—from gaol?

Mr. Hurd: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The lady in question has said various things at various times. I am looking urgently at the matter in the hope of finding a way to resolve it which will commend itself to all strands of opinion in the House.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The figures given by my right hon. Friend disclose a substantial degree of overcrowding in prisons. Rather than believing that the answer is in further fettering the discretion of the courts in regard to penalties, may I ask my hon. Friend what is happening about the prison building programme?

Mr. Hurd: We are maintaining the prison building programme—it is on course. The current estimated cost is £360 million. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, it consists of 16 projects, of which three have been completed, five are under construction and four are at detailed design stage. The 16 new prison establishments that I have mentioned will provide a total of about 7,700 new places. This is work that has been neglected over many years, but we now have it in hand.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that one way in which prison overcrowding could be tackled in part would be by the Government bringing forward legislation in line with the suggestion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in a recent report to the effect that bail needs to be reconsidered both in its terms of reference and in regard to decisions in the Reading justices case and the Nottingham justices case, which might be overturned by legislation. The courts could then from time to time during


a period of remand reconsider bail. In this way, some people would get out on bail and reduce the pressure on prison accommodation.

Mr. Hurd: I would need to consider that, but it did not sound appetising or encouraging from the description that the hon. Gentleman gave. Those who deserve prison sentences should get effective sentences, both as a means of punishment and for the protection of the public. For minor offences, the courts need to have in front of them a range of penalties, including alternatives to custody. It is important that the alternatives should be properly presented to them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the excellent work being done at Morton Hall in my constituency, where low risk category C prisoners are kept in relaxed conditions? Does he agree that many prisoners in secure establishments could he kept properly in less secure establishments?

Mr. Hurd: Let me consider that.

Mr. Kaufman: Returning to the matter raised with the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), may I ask him to be much more precise about when he can make a statement? He has said that he has been considering the case. It is a matter that has aroused widespread concern. That being so, if it were to turn out that the person is serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit, there would be great public anger if that man were not released as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hurd: I understand that. The right hon. Gentleman has put it fairly. It is important. It is not as straightforward as it seemed in the television programme. There is nothing unusual about that. It means that we need a bit of time, though not too much, to work out a sensible solution.

Mr. Maclennan: Whatever the position about those who have been convicted, is not the Home Secretary disturbed by the growing number of those held in custody on remand? What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Hurd: I am aware of the problem. We are trying to reduce the long periods that people have to wait for trial. Next month we are beginning field trials in Birmingham, Bristol, Maidstone and Southwark to apply time limits to the waiting period before trial, a principle well known to the hon. Gentleman because it originated in his country of origin.

Chemical Weapons

Dr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of the downwind lethal range of the effects of detonation of bombs containing nerve agents; and what, in each case, were the sizes of the bombs, the assumptions about wind and weather conditions and the extent of the effects.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that training in protection against chemical weapons is given in special courses at the Civil Defence college, Easingwold.

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's scientific research branch is working on protective measures against chemical weapons.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Until a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons is achieved, the Government judge it prudent to conduct such studies as part of their examination of ways of warning and protecting the population against chemical attack. The work is not yet complete. When it is, my right hon. Friend will consider what information and training it would be appropriate to make available.

Dr. Blackburn: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether the United Kingdom, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. has arm obligation to protect the civilian population from the effects of chemical warfare?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will be aware that NATO has a civil defence committee, which is developing guidelines on a wide range of civil defence measures and long-term measures for the protection of the civilian population against the effects of chemical weapons.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that courses currently held at the Civil Defence college are inadequate to deal with defence against chemical weapons? Will he acknowledge that there should be specific courses designed for all emergency planning officers?

Mr. Shaw: I accept that. At the moment the courses are less full than they should be, but my hon. Friend will recognise that some of the recommendations of the working party will no doubt be directed at the design of proper training.

Mr. Speed: Does my hon. Friend intend than the Government will provide protection for the general public along the lines already adopted by Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, for example, against the effects of chemical weapons?

Mr. Shaw: I am aware that several countries, including the Scandinavian countries, have a mask system to deal with these matters, and no doubt that will be one of the things considered by the working party.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not irresponsible of the Minister to pretend that people can be protected against chemical weapon attack? Would not he and his colleagues be better employed trying to convince President Reagan to forget about his plans to escalate the number of chemical weapons? The Government should come clean with the public and spend time getting an agreement with the Soviet Union to get rid of all chemical weapon stocks.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Soviet Union has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons in stock. He might also take comfort from the fact that next year the United Kingdom will chair the chemical weapons working party at the Geneva talks. I trust that at that time progress will be made.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister tell the House what animals are used in chemical weapons experiments?

Mr. Shaw: No, Sir, because we are presently considering the abolition of chemical weapons.

Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend has already referred to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Defence on Tuesday, when he expressed concern about the 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons held by the Soviet bloc. If he shares my concern about this, not only


for the Service men but for their families, will he try to persuade the Home Secretary to join the Secretary of State for Defence in ensuring that adequate resources are made available for dealing with this hazard?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend can rest assured that my right hon. Friend will certainly lose no time in dealing with this issue when it is properly analysed and recommendations are placed before him. I can assure my hon. Friend that civil defence training and preparation is one of the topics with which we deem it prudent to deal.

Immigration

Mr. Torney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes he has introduced regarding representations by hon. Members on immigration cases.

Mr. Waddington: Since my letter to hon. Members in 1983, no major changes have been introduced into the system of dealing with such representations, although in the summer of this year, when we were faced with a very large influx of Tamils, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary asked hon. Members to help by making their representations within 24 hours or by agreement as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members with large numbers of Asians in their constituencies have no need at all to look for cases or to invite cases? Their surgeries are always packed to overflowing and their telephones never stop ringing with calls from Asian people who have been caused considerable hardship by his Department. Is he further aware that there has been some change in allowing Asian women into the country to marry Asian men who are legally here? Why is that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there have been no changes? I have written to him about cases in this category and I am waiting for them to be dealt with. They are cases brought to me by the citizens of Bradford. I did not search for them.

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to wives and financees, presumably he is referring to the change in the rules that took place in July. His question is about the system of representations, and that system has not changed at all. The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that there is no abuse. I repeat that we never refuse entry to anybody unless there is the clearest evidence that he is not qualified to enter. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the letters that I sent to him when entry was refused in a particular case by an immigration officer and I upheld that decision.

Sir John Farr: When visitors from the New Commonwealth are allowed in for a limited time, how good is my hon. and learned Friend's monitoring system, and what steps does he take to make sure that those people are sent back and are not allowed to go to ground in some of our inner cities?

Mr. Waddington: The figures that I gave earlier were for those refused entry and later returned abroad. That gives some indication of those returned. I should like our system to be more efficient. At present, those who are refused entry or granted entry for a limited period go on our computer, and if the system works perfectly we should

be able to match those who go on to the computer at the beginning with those who leave. We are working to get a more efficient system, but I do not pretend that it is ideal yet.

Mr. Faulds: Would not life be made much easier and pleasanter for certain hon. Members, for the Minister and his staff and for the poor people affected in these cases if he ensured that more appointments were made in his Department to handle such cases, and if more appointments were made in the Foreign Office abroad to handle applications in the countries of origin? Surely the Minister must be aware that the bottlenecks and delays that happen in these cases are entirely due, not to ministerial obfuscation, but to the shortage of staff, abroad and in Britain, to handle these cases?

Mr. Waddington: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures that I gave earlier. I want him and other hon. Members to contemplate the enormous burden that has been placed on the immigration and nationality department simply as a result of 4,500 cases—the estimate for 1985 — where hon. Members have intervened or will intervene before the end of the year. That means that 4,500 letters must be written from the Department to hon. Members explaining what has happened in those cases. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members to say that there ought to be more staff, unless they are prepared to address themselves to the fact that something is going wrong with the system because some hon. Members are abusing—I am not afraid to use that word—that system.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with sporting organisations about the implementation of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act.

Mr. Hurd: We are in continuing touch with the police and football organisations about the Act. We are awaiting information from the Football League about the effect on clubs' revenue.

Mr. Beith: Are the exemptions being granted by magistrates on a greater or lesser scale than Ministers envisaged when they brought forward the legislation? Has the Home Secretary been able to give assurances to other, well-regulated sports that he has no present intentions to extend the Act to them?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly have no present intention to extend the rules to other sports. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I think that the number of local exemptions that magistrates are giving is broadly in line with what we expected. It was a deliberate act of the Government and Parliament to provide for local decision-taking by magistrates when exemption applications are made.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the implementation of the Act is having a disastrous effect on the finances of many football clubs? Will he give an undertaking to the House that, as the season progresses, he will look at the Act again, with a view to amending it at the end of the season so that responsible clubs can be exempted?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I gladly give that assurance. We need evidence, and so far we do not have adequate evidence.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware that it would be easy to eradicate football violence, simply by stopping football matches? That would be the effect of these measures and some safety measures which will have an impact on vulnerable clubs. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put together a rescue package for vulnerable clubs which could otherwise go out of business because of the Act and other measures?

Mr. Hurd: I could have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am not sure that I would find it a very fruitful business. He might point out to me, with some justice, that the football industry, here and there, has considerable sums of money available for its own purposes.

Sunday Trading

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding Sunday trading; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Waddington: Since the debate on the report of the Auld committee report in the House of Commons on 20 May we have received representations on all sides of the argument about Sunday trading. We have replied, setting out the reasons for our proposals to abolish statutory restrictions on Sunday trading.

Mr. Latham: Has my hon. and learned Friend noticed that the Church of England General Synod, hardly a nest of bolsheviksvoted by 367 to one against the Government's proposals? Will he, therefore, hoist on board the storm cones going up behind him and drop these divisive and provocative proposals?

Mr. Waddington: I do not believe that there will be any radical change in the character of Sunday as a result of this legislation. In this day and age we are all entitled to spend our Sundays in the way in which we think proper. Some of us may go to church in the morning and then wish thereafter to go to a garden centre or a do-it-yourself store and buy paint to paint the bathroom in the evening. Others may wish to go to church and then stay at home. I hope, incidentally, that they do not turn on the television or the radio or the electricity and thereby cause work for others; but they are entitled to spend their day in that way. This is a matter of fundamental freedom of choice and that is why we are right to legislate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bruinvels: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 24 October.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is in New York to address the 40th anniversary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, and to have meetings with President Reagan and others.

Mr. Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984 20,000 young children went missing in this country,

including 1,047 from Leicestershire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Including the hon. Member."] — While some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches may find a statistic like that rather amusing, as a member of the Conservative party, the family party, I find this particularly disturbing. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a central register should be established in conjunction with the Home Office so that parents who are frightened and worred that their children may not be found can have help in locating them? Would he also reconsider Sunday trading because so many children will be left at home on Sunday and may be tempted to disappear when there is no one at home to look after them?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend highlights a serious social phenomenon. I am certain that he is right, that this is a matter that gives rise to growing concern. As I understand it, the police national computer facilities are available for the compilation of records, but I understand that my hon. Friend would wish the scope to be much wider than at present. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office would be happy to see him to discuss the matter further.

Mr. Martin: Is the Leader of the House aware that the BREL workshops in Springburn are in serious difficulties? The local authority has asked to be allowed to do a feasibility study, which is common practice among many local authorities when redundancies are declared, but the BREL management has refused to allow representatives of the local authority on to the premises. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to look into this very serious matter and try to do something to help alleviate the serious situation in Springburn?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a relatively narrow point, but undoubtedly one of great substance in Springburn. I shall comply with his request that I inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport of this development to see what can be done.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the report of Association of British Chambers of Commerce today, which shows a disastrous decline in the business confidence of manufacturing industry and in its orders? Does he agree that high interest rates, a high exchange rate and high pay settlements are completely undermining the competitiveness of British industry? Will this not lead to even higher unemployment, more bankruptcies and lower growth? What will the Government do about it?

Mr. Biffen: I should take that liturgy of gloom more seriously if we were not now in our sixth trade surplus year. After real problems for manufacturing industry as it came to terms with the reality denied it over many years, manufacturing exports are rising at a rate of about 7 per cent. per annum.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to scan the newspapers for reports on the statesmanlike speech made last night by Chief Buthelezi, the leader of


Inkartha, the biggest black political movement in South Africa? If he does he will be disappointed, because not a word appears about his remarks, which are both statesmanlike and constructive, and which totally reject mandatory economic sanctions against that country as a way of achieving political change.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Chief Buthelezi more accurately represents the true voice of black power in South Africa than does the African National Congress? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy is not to talk with terrorist organisations, or any organisation, until they have rejected terrorism as a way of achieving political change?

Mr. Biffen: Chief Buthelezi does speak for a substantial section of opinion in South Africa. I am certain that his advocacy of a policy that avoids sanctions will strike a chord with many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Not least, it will reinforce the remarks of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who said:
Total or even selective trade sanctions will not succeed. The history of sanction-breaking in Africa tells us that.
That and much else was put into context yesterday in our debate on the subject. I am certain that my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of Chief Buthelezi's role.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Leader of the House recall that it is exactly one year since the extent of famine in Ethiopia was revealed to the British people by the BBC? That famine is now endemic to all sub-Saharan Africa. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Government reducing overseas aid in the same period?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's aid programme has risen faster than prices over the last three years. I admit that that is in the context of an aid budget which is not that much more than £1,000 million, but it is roughly in line with the OECD percentage of gross domestic product. Before easy promises are struck in Central Hall or anywhere else about doubling the aid programme in the lifetime of a Parliament, I am sure that those who have as their bedside reading the book by Lord Barnett will recollect that the aid budget was cut in two successive years under a Labour Government.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make such comparisons, does he remember that between 1974 and 1979 the aid budget was increased by 15 per cent.? What is the increase likely to be — or, more accurately, what will the decrease be—between when the Conservative party came to office and when it loses office in 1987? The right hon. Gentleman chooses to preach to us about priorities. Does he understand that we all accept that Government spending programmes must involve priorities? It is Government priorities that we reject and resent. Why is it right to cut the tax on unearned income instead of increasing overseas aid?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in saying that I adopt the stance of preaching on this or any other subject. The moral megaphone used by some politicians is wholly deafening and distasteful. We try to budget as we believe to be appropriate to our total public spending responsibilities. As the IMF episode under the last Labour Government demonstrated, whatever one's early intentions, one has in the end to deal with reality.

Mr. Nellist: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Leader of the House aware that GEC has recently declared 900 redundancies, 600 in the city of Coventry and 300 in Fife? Does he agree that as the company last year made £725 million profit, increased dividends to its shareholders by £12 million to £107 million, and now has a cash mountain of £1,400 million liquid assets it is disgraceful that workers in Coventry and Scotland, who made those profits and that cash mountain, should now be condemned to long-term unemployment?

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I regret any factors that give rise to unemployment. As I once sought parliamentary representation in Coventry, admittedly without success—I am now happy to stick with Shropshire, which has proved much more congenial—I know that GEC as a company has brought great advantages and prosperity to Coventry over the decades. I suspect that many people would join me in feeling that if many other companies were as effective as GEC British industry generally would be far more competitive.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the statements made recently in a speech in the United States by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Is he aware that the Chief Constable said that there was not the necessary co-operation from the Garda in the Republic in the fight against the IRA? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend is not prepared to allow the people of Northern Ireland, who are being bombed and murdered by the IRA, to have the full context of that speech, so that they can decide where the truth lies?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that the full context of the speech exists. I do not wish to tangle with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I join him in saying that Sir John Hermon is a most distinguished public servant and that he deserves the support that he has indeed received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michie: When the Leader of the House next sees the Prime Minister, will he ask how she can support a Government who have destroyed our industrial base throughout the country, especially in my area of Sheffield, and presided over 4 million unemployed, yet can suddenly find a conscience about the unemployed and use that as an excuse not to impose further sanctions on South Africa?

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, refer the question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as that was the request, but I should not like it to be thought that I was unable to make any comment of my own upon it. The hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that our gross domestic product is rising by more than 2½ per cent. per annum, manufacturing investment is rising at 14½ per cent., there are clear signs of a growth in the employment base and fixed investment is at an all-time high. I know that Labour Members have a vested interest in gloom, but all those factors will come to fruition and make the next election extremely profitable.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend were to become leader of a party that sought to win the next general election, and if he had potentially among his more influential colleagues someone with the totally unpleasant characteristics of Mr. Bernard Grant, when asked in the House what he intended to do about Mr. Grant or somebody like him, would he demean himself by ducking the issue, as was done yesterday?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend asks a very interesting question of a somewhat hypothetical nature. The whole hypothesis contained in the expectation that I should be leader of the Conservative party is as improbable as it is entertaining. We are then asked to expect that a Conservative association would have the political misperception to choose a mirror image of Mr. Bernie Grant, which is also wholly improbable. All the tic-tac signs on the Opposition Benches demonstrate acute nervousness. In the House we have come to know and respect the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), distinguished in his service to the House, to the trade union movement and to the Labour party generally. It is his radicalism and his commitment to the Left which is now being turned aside for a very dubious replacement.

Mr. John Fraser: Is it true that the Prime Minister would uphold the suppression of a Government report on defects in council housing on the ground that it would unnecessarily worry millions of tenants to know that £20 billion must be spent on defects in estates such as the Broadwater Farm estate but there is not the slightest hope of the Treasury allowing local authorities to spend such money?

Mr. Biffen: The charming and convinced way in which that question is proposed conceals the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not believe a word of it. He knows perfectly well that the Government have committed themselves to publish the report, and published it will be.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?

Mr. Dickens: Yes, Sir. I should like your guidance. Question No. 1 to the Prime Minister was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and concerned child protection, which is a serious subject. Because my hon. Friend is short in stature, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) felt obliged to cast an aside to the effect that my hon. Friend is one of the missing children, which reduced the House to uproar. To put the record straight, may I have your assurance. Mr. Speaker, that the House intends to treat the protection of children seriously? May I thank you for allowing me to raise this issue on a bogus point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on this important matter before. I am afraid that I have no responsibility for this issue, but I have a responsibility to protect the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). Had I heard the remark in question—I am glad to say that I do not hear everything—he would have received that protection today.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and the presence in Britain of Chief Buthelezi. Right hon. and hon. Members will have been worried to read in this morning's newspapers that Mr. Oliver Tambo——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This sounds very like a continuation of Question Time.

Mr. Carlisle: I hope that the relevance of my point of order will become clear to you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Oliver Tambo, the revolutionary leader of the African National Congress, has been invited to give evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Why, as he is also in London, was Chief Buthelezi not asked to give evidence to the Select Committee——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for who is or is not asked to give evidence to a Select Committee. That is entirely a matter for the Select Committee concerned.

Business of the House

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 OCTOBER—Consideration of the Lords messages relating to the Insolvency Bill [Lords], and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Motions on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organistion) Order and the European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation) Order.
TUESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Commons consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Transport Bill.
Motion on the Supplementary Benefit (requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations Order.
WEDNESDAY 3o OCTOBER—The House will meet at 2.30 pm for prorogation.
The House may also be asked to consider other business as The new Session will be opened on Wednesday 6 November.

Mr. Hattersley: I have three questions to ask arising from the business statement.
First, may we have a promise that the Prime Minister will make a statement next week on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference while the memory of her performance is still fresh in our minds? Secondly, is there to be a considered response to the report on overseas trade of the House of Lords Select Committee in addition to what the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last week? Thirdly, may we be told the date on which the Chancellor will make his autumn statement? The leak about its contents and leaks about its omissions are appearing weekly in the Sunday newspapers. May we be told when the authorised version will be presented to us?

Mr. Biffen: It would probably be most helpful if we considered the timing of the autumn statement through the usual channels. As for the Select Committee report on manufacturing industry which has been produced by another place, I am not entirely clear about the proprieties of this matter, but I shall look into the question and get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to his first question is "Yes".

Mr. Richard Hickmet: One of the consequences of the wholesale extension of the Rent Acts has been to remove much rented accommodation from the market. While Rent Acts protection exists in its present form, the prospect of obtaining significant investment in inner cities from the private sector will remain slim. In addition, the prospect of ensuring that accommodation is available in those areas where employment exists will continue. Will my right hon. Friend consult the Prime Minister about the prospects of

including in the Queen's Speech legislation designed to repeal some of the provisions of the Rent Acts relating to new leases?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly comply with my hon. Friend's request, but he knows full well that it is not customary for me to anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Leader of the house do his best to find time to enable us to debate the Official Opposition's prayer against the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1985?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into that and get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Given the widespread concern about road safety both inside and outside the House, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall have an early debate on the subject, if not next week, as soon as the debate on the Queen's Speech is over?

Mr. Biffen: I shall consider that point. On the other hand, I have a fairly useful safety hatch that I shall not dispense with that early. It is to point out that the debate on the Queen's Speech will present plenty of opportunities for matters such as this to be ventilated.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Secretary of State for Energy about the possibility of his making a statement before Wednesday on the problem of mine workers who have not paid national insurance contributions for 12 months and an indication of how he will resolve this problem?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that the Secretary of State For Energy will be first to answer questions on Monday and there may be opportunities to raise this matter then.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend find time before the House rises next week to make a statement on the efforts being made to persuade the insurance companies involved in the Abbeystead disaster to cease the long-drawn-out process of dragging the victims or the dependants through the courts and instead to behave as generously towards them as the insurers involved in the Manchester airport disaster have behaved towards their victims by making a settlement on generous terms?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consult my colleagues to see what can be done in response to the point that my hon. Friend has made on a matter that is properly of great concern in her constituency. However, I understand that the question of responsibility for the accident, as well as that of compensation, is currently the subject of legal action, and that is bound to have some inhibiting consequences.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Was the Leader of the House present when the Home Secretary answered question 9 on the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985? If he was, he will have heard the Home Secretary say that he will review the position at the end of the football season. Since much of the cash received by football clubs for the hiring of private boxes and other


such matters comes in well before the end of the season, will the Leader of the House ask his colleague to make an early review of the effects of the Act with a view to changing it well before the end of the football season?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly pass that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Latham: If my right hon. Friend will be looking next week for ways of making the Queen's Speech a little shorter, will he start by eliminating from it Bills that are likely to cause trouble on the Government Back Benches? Perhaps next Sunday would he a good time to start.

Mr. Biffen: I have always thought that it was a matter of eliminating either Bills or Back-Bench Members, but I shall consider the matter further.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the journalist on The Observer who exposed the way in which staff who apply for positions with the BBC are vetted by the security services? While noting the agreement reached yesterday between the unions involved and the BBC, which is some progress, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make available time for the House to debate such matters, including especially the majority and minority reports of the Select Committee on Home Affairs into the special branch? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is growing anxiety about the way in which civil liberties in Britain are being undermined, as illustrated by the story in The Observer about the BBC, which related to intrusions by the security service into matters that have no bearing on subversion?

Mr. Biffen: I fancy that I am obsequious to most of the press for most of the time, so no special congratulations will be expected of me in respect of The Observer. However, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said about the matter being suitable for debate. I should point out that he will never have as good an opportunity as he will have during the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to keep a close eye, both before and after Wednesday, on the efforts of the Australian company Elders IXL to take over Allied Lyons although it is only one quarter the size of Allied Lyons? The latter company employs 2,600 of my constituents. The matter is important in view of the possible effects on their jobs and on their families' prosperity.

Mr. Biffen: When the Englishman's beer becomes the subject of reverse colonisation, it is clearly a matter of great concern to the House. However, my hon. Friend will know that the fair trading legislation and the arrangements of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are well able to deal with the matter.

Mr. Leo Abse: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 955:
[That this House regards with incredulity the Secretary of State for Wales's unique portrayal as an independent inquiry of an inquiry into the affairs of the Parrot Corporation conducted within his Department by a person appointed by himself and reporting to himself, yet being asked to investigate failures by himself and his own Department and agencies; regards this as a farce;

demands a genuine independent inquiry presided over by a judicially equipped individual; and condemns any failure to achieve such an independent investigation because it will prejudice the involvement of outside finance in the future development of job prospects in Wales]
Since the Leader of the House is charged with defending the well-established conventions of the House, will he draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Wales to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and point out to him that his appointment of an independent investigator reporting to him is a subversion of that doctrine? When he is talking to the Secretary of State for Wales, will he emphasise the fact that, in view of the widespread anxiety in Wales about the corporation, the Secretary of State should make a statement next week before the house rises, taking into account the terms of the motion, so that the investigation may have enough validity to cause the City to re-establish some confidence in the Secretary of State's office and his agencies?

Mr. Biffen: As a mere point of observation, I should say that the hon. Gentleman is not completely dispassionate in this controversy. However, I shall certainly pass on his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the Home Secretary's extremely important new initiative on equal opportunities in employment, will my right hon. Friend find time soon to allow the Home Secretary to explain his policies and, most of all, to warn accountants, lawyers, defence contractors, perhaps even whole sectors of the catering industry, and certainly anybody who wishes to do any business with the Government, that before they can do so they must explain and justify their policies for ethnic recruitment?

Mr. Biffen: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend may be injecting into this topic more drama than is fully merited, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to what he has said.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House say when he expects the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an announcement about the selection of sites by NIREX for further investigation for the disposal of radioactive waste? Will he assure the House that the special development orders in respect of those sites will not be debated until the investigation into radioactive waste at present being undertaken by the Environment Select Committee has been concluded and a report made to the House?

Mr. Biffen: Those are genuine points of substance. I shall certainly look into the matter, and convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): My right hon. Friend will be aware of proposals to enlarge the European Economic Community to include Spain and Portugal and that those proposals must come to the House for consideration before the end of this calendar year. Can he give the House an undertaking, not only that there will be the fullest possible opportunity for debate of these controversial proposals but that there will be an opportunity for a vote so that hon. Members may express their misgivings and those of their constituents about this important and controversial matter?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. His points are legitimate, and I ask him to await the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Michael Foot: A little earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman told us with great feeling that he could not stand moral megaphones any more. May we take it that that was in anticipation of his resignation on the return of the Prime Minister to London? Does he accept that, if he resigns from the Government, the whole contraption will fall apart?

Mr. Biffen: That is a most generous and welcome over-interpretation of my role in this whole business. I am grateful for it, but I cannot sensibly comment beyond that.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the subject of another contraption which may fall apart, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have an early debate about the Channel fixed-link project? Is he aware of the mounting anxiety about an unnecessary degree of mystery and secrecy surrounding not only the costs and financing of the operation but the Government's criteria for judging which of the bids will be successful, which has not yet been revealed?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a specific answer to my hon. Friend, and I must observe the nearness of the Queen's Speech. However, I realise that the matter is of tremendous importance, particularly for certain areas of the south-east, and I shall consider my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the social security order tabled for debate on Tuesday night is the one about which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has issued a report questioning the vires of the order? If so, is it not unprecedented for the Government to continue with an order when a clear report has been made that almost certainly part of it is illegal? Should not the Government withdraw it because do they not believe in upholding rather than breaking the law?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, made from his position of authority as Chairman of the Joint Committee, but I understand that another view suggests that the matter is not ultra vires and that discussions have been suggested. Perhaps we can see how they proceed.

Mr. John Carlisle: I return to my abortive point of order about people being invited to Select Committees to give evidence. Will the House have an opportunity to debate the matter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Oliver Tambo, leader of the revolutionary African National Congress which is committed to the violent overthrow of the South African Government, has been invited to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee next Tuesday? If Select Committees are to follow that procedure, may we expect evidence to be given by members of the IRA, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and other such terrorist groups to which the Government refuse to speak? May we have an early discussion and, perhaps, guidance from my right hon. Friend about who should or should not be invited to Select Committees?

Mr. Biffen: That raises important questions such as whether the Government should have some form of regulation over who may or may not be called by Select

Committees. I believe that it would be the wish of the House that that matter should be left to the Select Committees. If another view was to be expressed, it would have to be expressed by the House rather than the Executive. However, I know that there are strong feelings about this matter, and I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: As the Scottish teachers' dispute has been dragging on for well over a year, and as there is a similar dispute south of the border, may we have a debate as soon as possible so that we can express our views on the legitimate demand for a review of teachers' salaries? We must bear in mind that the Government recently handed out increases of up to 17 per cent. to admirals, judges, generals and other top brass, none of whom does such a valuable job as a teacher.

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman should declare a former interest. Being a fair-minded man, he would agree that earlier this week we had two comprehensive statemens on the dispute. Perhaps the best opportunity for the matter to be ventilated again would be presented by the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on civil defence?

Mr. Biffen: I have to travel with great caution. It would be best if my hon. Friend used the excellent opportunities provided by the debate upon the Queen's Speech because it might be some time before a debate in Government time could be arranged on that specific topic.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House agree that, because the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for local government, his door should always be open to any leader of any local authority? Should we not, therefore, debate the intransigence of the Secretary of State in refusing to meet the leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor John Hamilton, to discuss the financial crisis in the city? Is it not a disgrace that, when a city as large as Liverpool is faced with a crisis as a result of the Government's local government policies, it is not debated in the forum of the nation—this House of Commons?

Mr. Biffen: There would be a great deal of interest in any debate on local government in Liverpool, the conduct of the civic leaders and the extent to which such conduct deserved the support of the House. However, that is a luxury that we shall have to forgo for the moment. The hon. Gentleman and others interested in this topic would be well advised to use the occasion of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Sir William Clark: Has my right hon. Friend seen the press reports that minor criminal misdemeanours of those working in the Civil Service should be dealt with internally? Does he agree that that is at variance with what happens in the private sector? Will he give an assurance that before any policy decision is made there will be a full debate in the House on any difference between those committing criminal misdemeanours within the public service and those committing them in the private sector?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows that that is a matter of importance and general public interest. I shall draw the attention of the relevant Secretary of State to his anxieties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Leader of the House notice the report during the recess that the Export Credits Guarantee Department had lost £400 million during the previous trading year? Did he realise—I am sure that he did—that the Consolidated Fund had been asked to provide £250 million of taxpayers' money to bale out that body?
Should there not be a statement on that matter before the end of the Session so that we may question why, in the annual report, it was suggested that £22 million was not accounted for? I have written to the Prime Minister and asked her to explain the whereabouts of that £22 million. Some of us believe that the organisation is engaged in certain fraudulent trading practices in Nigeria. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made so that we can determine precisely what has happened to the taxpayers' money? If the Government cannot afford to subsidise the pits, why are they prepared to subsidise practices of that kind, both here and abroad?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a most serious and substantial allegation against activities which fall largely within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall draw his attention to them.

Mr. Roger King: Given the unsurpassed abilities of my right hon. Friend, I should nevertheless welcome his assurance that he has mastered the opportunities afforded by the newly installed Facilityphones. Mine acts very like a girl I once knew: it lights up and squawks every time I press the wrong digit.

Mr. Biffen: I do not think I can outclass that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Leader of the House explain why Ministers in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have not yet come to the House to announce the aid that they intend to give to the suffering agriculture industry? In particular, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland announces in detail before Prorogation what the Government propose to do to help the industry to overcome the losses that have been sustained — estimated by the National Farmers Union of Scotland at about £200 million—during this almost unprecedentedly bad summer?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the question that the hon. Gentleman raises about recompensing farmers for losses resulting from bad weather and draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to his anxieties.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: May we have a debate, perhaps next week, on the role of county planning and environment committees, in particular Leicestershire's planning committee, which makes recommendations to the environment committee, which promptly disregards them and puts into my constituency 4,500 council houses that are unwanted by my constituents, by myself and by the local councillors for the area? Is this not a typical case of a county council—in this case, unfortunately, a Conservative county council — supported by Labour county councillors, riding roughshod over the wishes of their Members of Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: That highlights the fact that the old skills of the late Lord Morrison, who was once Leader of the House and who managed to build with a great eye for

marginality in the seats around London. have not been lost in Leicester. I fear that it is a fact of life with which my hon. Friend may have to learn to live. I will look into the point that he raises, but I cannot guarantee a debate next week.

Mr William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House look into the question of empty National Coal Board houses for the occupation of which the NCB will not grant tenancies to the sons and daughters of former mine workers? Will he provide time for a debate on the serious situation that has developed in areas where mines have closed, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where there is an estate of about 40 empty houses? In other words, will he provide time so that we may discuss the plight of people who wish to become tenants of such empty houses but are being denied tenancies by the NCB?

Mr. Biffen: I am not absolutely clear about the extent to which there is a ministerial responsibility in that matter. If there is, it would probably be most appropriate for the issue to be debated, at least initially, on the Adjournment.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As it appears that the courts have been unable to find anybody guilty of riotous behaviour during Mr. Scargill's coal dispute. and as undoubtedly riotous behaviour took place — and particularly as riots have taken place since the coal dispute—is it not a matter of the utmost urgency that the law on riots and the method of the administration of justice should be reformed so that rioters may be brought before the courts and dealt with swiftly?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to develop that theme when the debate occurs on the Queen's speech. Meanwhile, I shall draw the attention of the Home Secretary to his remarks.

Mr. Ray Powell: Following the reply of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) about the Parrot Corporation, may I, too, ask whether he has observed early-day motion 955, which deals with the subject, and whether he has read the report of questions and answers on Monday at Welsh Question Time, when the Secretary of State promised Wales and the House a statement?
We in Wales await that statement anxiously because we want to know what has happened to the millions of pounds involved in the Parrot Corporation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are more than concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State is appointing not only the judge but the jury, when he is himself in the dock?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that this matter was raised both during Welsh questions and in points of order at their termination. I was here and heard some of the exchanges. My recollection was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that he would report further to the House. I shall refer the matter to him.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springbum): I wish to impose on the Leader of the House and ask him again about British Rail Engineering Ltd in Springburn. I understand that BREL carried out a consultancy report, as a result of which it declared massive redundancies in my constituency and in other parts of the country. I also understand that the Secretary of State for Transport has the report in his possession. Will the Leader of the House ask


the Secretary of State to make the report available in the Library as Back Benchers like myself need as much information as possible when redundancies are declared?

Mr. Biffen: In addition to the representations that earlier I promised to make, I shall make the further and refined representations that are now sought.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As SDI, or "star wars", is likely to be a bargaining counter between the superpowers at the Geneva summit, is it not appropriate and essential, in view of the Prime Minister's obvious enthusiasm for this dangerous concept, that we should have a full debate on the issue on the Floor of the House and before the summit in Geneva?

Mr. Biffen: The earliest practical opportunity that we shall have to probe this matter will be in the questions on the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister early next week. I should have thought that thereafter this subject would be very much to the fore of thinking in the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I refer the Leader of the House to earlier remarks about the Channel tunnel. Does he understand the strength of feeling that exists in the north of England in particular but in other parts where industry has also been decimated over recent years that it would be grossly unfair that such a massive amount of fixed investment should go into the richest region of the country? Will he join me in deprecating the fact that those who have a commercial interest are already putting out opinion polls claiming to represent the feelings of Members of Parliament when Parliament has not had the opportunity to debate the issue and make its feelings known?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that he does not think it casual of me when I say that we went round this subject in the 1970–74 Parliament, and that, even though some things have changed, quite a lot remains the same. On the whole, hon. Members have a certain disdain for opinion polls that purport to represent the opinion of the public at large. I hope that we do not have to be mollycoddled so that we cannot use our own abilities to disregard any attempts by outside organisations to bend our opinions by what they think that we all imagined among ourselves.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have always wanted to ask the Leader of the House this question. Does he feel that the growing and welcome frequency of absence by the Prime Minister from the House is enhancing or hindering his chances of becoming the next Leader of the Conservative party?

Mr. Biffen: That is a question of such central consequence to the fate of the Tory party and our national life that I do not think that I should be required to answer it off the cuff.

Board and Lodging Regulations

Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like a ruling from you on whether it is in order for the Government unprecedentedly to push through regulations such as the board and lodging regulations, which were declared illegal in the High Court on 4 August and which, in their revised form, have now been declared ultra vires by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Is it not improper for the Government to introduce revised regulations that seek to pre-empt the decision of a court of appeal that will not be known until the end of November? Is it not invidious for hon. Members to be asked to vote on regulations that are sub judice and that one of the Select Committees has declared exceed the powers held by the Secretary of State for Social Services? Is this not particularly so as this infamous legislation will lead to evictions beginning two weeks before Christmas? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the Government are not empowered to continue with this measure and, indeed, are now required to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have that authority. What measures they lay before the House, is entirely a matter for the Government and a matter for debate in the House. I have no authority to withdraw the regulations.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give us some guidance on whether the debate will be inhibited, when it takes place, by the fact that the whole matter is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the debate will be inhibited. We shall be debating an order that the Government will place before the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give me a little guidance? As I understand it, when a Bill is presented to the House, you have a duty to check it and to ascertain whether it is in order so that it can proceed through the House. If hon. Members wish to table amendments to a Bill, you again have a duty to inspect them to see whether they are in order. If they are not, they cannot be debated, although they may appear on the amendment paper.
As I understand it, we have been asked to consider a statutory instrument next Tuesday about which, to say the least, there are questions as to whether it is in order. Do you have a duty, Mr. Speaker, to treat any order laid before the House in the same way as primary legislation, or is there a different procedure for statutory instruments? However, if it is your duty to see whether something is in order before we can debate it, I hope that it will be possible for you to look at this matter over the weekend and then tell us whether you agree with the Select Committee that as the matter is not in order it is inappropriate for us to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look at it, but I do not think that it is a responsibility of mine. It is the Government's prerogative to put orders before the House, and it is for the House to debate them and then either accept them or reject them.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we ask the Leader


of the House, through you, to say more than he said earlier this afternoon, which was that there is a conflict of legal opinion about the legality of the orders? Be that as it may, can the Leader of the House say whether it has been the precedent for the Government of the day to accept, almost automatically, the findings of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? If that is the case, why are the Government seeking to creat further legal disturbance and controversy on this matter by introducing these controversial orders next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know what the precedent is on the point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but it is fair to say that, if the Department of Health and Social Security has a different view. one should at least invite a meeting to see whether the matter can be resolved. I accept that, at the end of the day, one will be influenced by the judgment of the Committee. That is bound to be, and no Government would wish it otherwise.

Public Accounts

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the 10th to 24th and 26th to 35th Reports from the Committee on Public Accounts of Session 1983–84. of the 1st to 25th Reports of Session 1984–85 and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance Memoranda on those Reports (Cmnd. 9226. 9325. 9368, 9373, 9452, 9464, 9530, 9546, 9587, 9638 and 9639), with particular reference to the following Reports: —

1983–84

13th Evasion and Enforcement of Vehicle Excise Duty
17th Sale of Government Shareholdings in publicly owned companies
21st Regional Industrial Incentives
33rd MOD: Economy of Stores Support
1984–85

6th Housing Benefits Scheme
9th Monitoring and Control of Nationalised Industries
17th NHS: General Dental Service—[Mr. Moore.]

Mr. Robert Sheldon: We are today introducing a new form of debate, so that seven of the reports with which we shall be dealing w ill be highlighted because we feel that they should show the particular interest of the Public Accounts Committee or that there are lessons be learnt, or that they express some of the concern that can best be shown by dealing with these reports.
The last debate on PAC reports took place on 20 March last year, when 46 reports were debated. We had a debate on the De Lorean report on 1 May, and in this interim debate. rather late in the Session, we are discussing 51 reports and 11 Command Papers in reply. When discussing the matters contained in the reports, we do not exclude any of these 51 reports. They can form the subject of an intervention by any hon. Member. We took this step because earlier this year there was a debate on premature retirement from the National Health Service, which formed the subject of one of our reports. A large number of hon. Members were interested in the report and we thought it right to highlight the points which ought to be debated. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for initiating this new form of debate.
It is my pleasant duty to thank my fellow members of the Committee, an impressive number who work far more assiduously than was the case when I first became a member of the Public Accounts Committee about 20 years ago. The House owes a great deal to the hard work done by hon. Members who debate, discuss and examine all these matters over a long time and deal with a formidable amount of paper.
All of our reports are unanimous. This forms the strength of the PAC reports. After questioning witnesses and discussing the draft reports, party differences are subsumed in the interests of achieving better administration and ensuring that value for money is obtained. When it is not obtained, we do not hesitate to say so. The PAC is one of the most demanding of the parliamentary Committees. Its future programme of work, which we shall shortly be discussing, will not make the Committee's task any easier in the months ahead.
My next pleasant duty is to thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff in the National Audit Office—Sir Gordon Downey and those who work with him—for the work that they do and for their reports. The new Green Paper reports go into these matters in much greater detail than was previously the case. The reports are agreed


with the Departments. That is their strength. Therefore, a basis of fact is established. The questions put by Committee members are based upon that basis of fact.
I thank also the Clerk of the Committee, John Rose, and his assistants; Mr. Calvert, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, who did noble work in the De Lorean matter; the Treasury officer of accounts, Mr. Judd; and the witnesses who appeared before the Committee.
Each year the Government spend about £130 billion. The PAC looks at about two-thirds of that amount. Our main task is to ensure that the money is spent upon the purposes intended by Parliament and that it goes to the right destinations. Control is effected by reports from the National Audit Office which form the basis of our investigations. I have already referred to the fact that these have been expanded and that the National Audit Office investigations are presented to the Committee and to Parliament as a whole in a much more dramatic way.
The PAC is called the watchdog of Parliament. It is not a label that I like very much, but it is a passable description of the work that we do. Occasionally the Committee bites a little, but its essential function is to warn and, more recently, to encourage. It tries to encourage those Departments that are doing certain things right, rather than each time to produce a negative response. The Committee examines how public money is spent and takes evidence from the Departments of State, based on the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has immediate and direct access to the accounts. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in 1983 introduced an Act under which legislative authority is provided for value for money examinations.
How does the Committee evaluate the effectiveness of Departments? First, we require a clear objective, with estimated financial expectation, to be set out in detail. Next, we ask for monitoring to be incorporated into the scheme, as originally devised, so that if matters do not turn out as planned the earliest possible warning can be given. As a result, we should be able to compare performance with objectives and therefore be able to evaluate the success or otherwise of the scheme.
All of this seems to be fairly obvious, but there have been startling instances when none of this has been implemented for schemes costing many millions of pounds. In the case of premature retirement from the National Health Service, no clear objective was laid down about the number of administrators who would be retiring and there was no means of monitoring the number of those retiring. We were unable, therefore, to establish how many administrators had retired prematurely. This was a glaring example of something that had gone wrong.
My next point concerns the value for money examinations that we undertake more frequently than was previously the case. The value for money requirement calls for much greater judgment than ordinary certification work, which involves checking that money has been used for the purposes for which Parliament intended it to be used. The reputation of the Committee is more difficult to maintain in this respect. Consequently, we rely upon the judgment of the members of the PAC.
This is a very interesting aspect of the Committee's work. However interesting this aspect may be, and however many new avenues are opened up to it, the

essential work of checking fraud has to continue. This must always remain the most important part of the Committee's work. It is even more important now because of what is regarded as lower morale, here and there, in the Civil Service. All too frequently civil servants are regarded as those who are unable to succeed in the more important private sector. The reduction in the size of the Civil Service also means there is much less possibility of advancement. Given the state of industry, in particular the construction industry, there is the twin danger of dissatisfied, underpaid civil servants dealing with desperate private contractors.
We must ensure that the standards of probity in our public life, of which we are rightly proud, are retained. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that civil servants face a greater challenge than any with which they have been confronted during the past 100 years. Therefore, it is all the more important to remain vigilant and to treat with adequate severity any failings that come to light.
A criticism that is frequently levelled at the work of the PAC is that it makes civil servants extra careful and that it destroys initiative. It is said that civil servants are cautious, and they are compared unfavourably with managers in the private sector. The comparison is often unfair. Private industry has a simple device for measuring success—profitability. Industry is very good at selling whatever product it wishes to offer for sale. Most of its activities are subordinate to its marketing function. It benefits from a certain degree of aggressive behaviour. This appeals to very many people, who tire of the more objective attitude adopted by civil servants. By comparison, civil servants appear to be laid back.
Those with experience of private industry know about the inefficiencies in its administration. To be fair, efficient administration is not its first priority. Its first priority is to obtain orders and to increase its market presence. However, when dealing with private industry Ministers spend much of their time with the more thrusting characters and come to admire them. They come less frequently into contact with the more inefficient parts of private industry. Often, administration in the Civil Service is compared unfavourably with business practice, but we are never comparing like with like. We should be aware of that.
The National Audit Office has now been established for two years. Its task is to obtain economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The relationship between that office and the Public Accounts Committee is not only close, but they mutually trust one another. We work closely together. What we have to do is to compare achievement with outturn, monitoring at the outset any piece of work that is put before us.
Two questions need to be answered about the watchdog functions of the Public Accounts Committee. Should not a good watchdog bite the occasional burglar, or, in similar terms, should not heads roll from time to time? The next question, which is not unrelated, is how far should civil servants take responsibility for the decisions of their Ministers? We know full well that Ministers have the supreme excuse that they can say that they took over a piece of work that had been initiated by another—"I took over a hopeless project. If only I had been there at the beginning it would have been splendid and I could have organised it properly." If a Minister initiated a project, he


might say, "If only I had been able to continue it, it would have been splendid." That illustrates the problem of bringing Ministers to book before the Committee.
One of the most hopeless cases to defend was defended in such terms when my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) tried to assert that everything done about De Lorean was done correctly and well—a view with which the Committee unanimously disagreed.
In regard to the relationship between civil servants and Ministers, civil servants may write a note of dissent absolving themselves from decisions by their Ministers, but that is a matter of last resort. The relationship between civil servant and Minister would move from incompatibility to something approaching hostility if that were done. Therefore, few notes of dissent are written, or perhaps I should say that few such notes are actually delivered. Heads cannot be expected to roll, but lessons can still be learnt.
There are cases where the fault lies at the door of one or more individuals. In such cases, should not action of a more direct kind be taken than put the known black mark against the career of the person involved? If action were taken, would the service be improved thereby, or would the action just satisfy the desire for blood? Those are questions upon which the Public Accounts Committee ponders and which the whole House might consider.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, to whose distinguished chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee I pay tribute. In regard to the relationship between the Civil Service and Ministers and possibly a defensive attitude, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that criticism by the Public Accounts Committee can lead to great improvement? A classic example is the Wardale report on corruption in the Property Services Agency. A hostile report from the PAC undoubtedly produced a considerable improvement, as the PAC itself said in its latest report.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right. The hon. Gentleman, who is a most assiduous and distinguished member of the Committee, had much to do with that.
Our task is not just to search for scapegoats, but to improve administration and to make sure that when Parliament votes money for certain projects that money is spent in the most economic, efficient and effective way and that the House gets value for money. We act on behalf of the House to ensure that its wishes and needs are protected. It is a tribute to the Committee as a whole that we have an understanding of how these things work in practice. Instead of pursuing legalistic methods of examination, we carry out our work with an understanding that is the hallmark of the Committee.
The 13th report, 1983–84, on vehicle excise duty showed that there was a large amount of evasion that was difficult to measure. In 1977–78 the Department of Transport made an examination which showed that 7 to 9 per cent. of motor cars and 10 to 13 per cent. of goods vehicles and motor cycles evaded tax. The loss of revenue was computed at £135 million to £174 million out of a total of £1,800 million collected in tax in 1982–83. I understand that the estimate has been reduced, and we should like to examine the matter to see whether that is so.
The Department of Transport gave up trying to get anything like full compliance with the law as it existed. It decided in 1980 to settle on the basis of 60 per cent. of cases brought in London and 80 per cent. elsewhere. In 1983, 1,185,000 offences were reported and only 253,000 people were prosecuted or penalised. That was an improvement on 1982. The average fine in 1983 was £33·60, compared with a maximum fine of £425 which the courts could impose. The Department sees no prospect of getting anything like full recovery of the missing revenue.
Alternatives to the method of tax collection are continuous liability or an increase in the duty on petrol. Another option would be to impose the fine on the possessor of the vehicle rather than on its user. Out of a total of 20 million vehicles on our roads, 2 million are without licences. The figure of more than 1 million offence reports suggests that die total number of offences is larger.
We welcome the Department's change of mind in its decision to undertake a further survey on evasion. It cannot be right that the penalties make evasion so profitable when we set a fine of £33·60 against the current licence fee of £100 and remember that that applies only when the offence is known and only when the offender is successfully prosecuted. The odds are too great and the mathematical advantages of non-compliance are far too attractive.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a survey has been carried out. The Government's statistical office published the results last December. Those results are encouraging. They show that there has been a substantial reduction in evasion, with the best estimate being that it is only 4 per cent. of the total, and lost revenue of roughly £90 million per annum. Surely that must reduce the force of the suggestion in the report that alternative means of raising the revenue should be considered.

Mr. Sheldon: I am glad to hear of some improvement, but the matter comes before the Public Accounts Committee so often that I hope the optimism engendered by those comments will be justified. Meanwhile, we note the low number of people prosecuted even when reports are made. I look forward to a contribution to the debate by my hon. Friend, if he is able to make one. We shall listen to him with great interest because of his constituency involvement with the Swansea vehicle licensing centre.
The 17th report of the 1983–84 Session deals with the sale of Government shareholdings in publicly owned companies. It deals with the sale of 51 per cent. of Britoil in November 1982, and 49 per cent. of Associated British Ports Holdings in February 1983. In 1981–82 the previous Committee was concerned about the prices at which British Aerospace and British Petroleum had been sold. The Committee called for a review of the arrangements which had allowed large profits to be made at the taxpayers' expense. We note that in both cases the sales method used was to dispose of 50 per cent. in one operation, and we asked that proper consideration should be given to a phased release of shares.
We were concerned that in settling the terms of the offer the Departments relied heavily on the advice of merchant bankers who were also involved in the underwriting. Such dual involvement provided an incentive to set a price which would ensure that the flotation was fully taken up. The Committee considered that the Departments should


not rely too heavily on merchant bankers who have an underwriting interest in the sale. Since then there has been further privatisation and substantial profits have been made by those involved. Those matters are likely to come before the Committee in due course.
Policy does not concern the Public Accounts Committee. At all times we are anxious to see that if there is a sale of Government property, national property, whatever it may be, full value is obtained for the taxpayer, on whose behalf we act.
Regional industrial incentives are the subject of the 21st report of 1983–84. At present, there are three categories of assisted areas special development, development and intermediate areas. Those cover about 28 per cent. of the working population. The regional development grant gives, under true capital expenditure programmes, levels of 22 per cent. payment in special development areas, 15 per cent. in the development areas and nothing at all in the intermediate areas. The RSA is a discretionary payment that can apply to all areas.
In 1981 the previous Committee thought it was time that proper objectives were set for regional assistance, and progress towards them was measured. The major task is to get the highest possible number of jobs in the regions. Of course, due regard must be paid to the amount of money spent. and to do that it is essential to have comprehensive information, and we call for that in paragraph 24 of our report. We know about the Department of Trade and Industry's proposals for initial surveys of the use of incentives and the qualitative indications of cost, but we doubt whether those go far enough. We have not yet been told whether more or fewer jobs will be created under the revised policy, or what the cost will be. What particularly concerned the Committee was that a full review of the effectiveness of revised incentives would be available only five years hence. We need to have a fuller understanding of the effectiveness of the new proposals long before that.
Regional policy has become even more important in recent years, and better forms of monitoring must be made available to the House. Regional policy depends on its success being measured and we need an assurance about that. I was pleased to see in the Treasury minute, which I received on Monday, that new surveys are being proposed which, on the face of it, appear to go some way towards meeting the demand of the Public Accounts Committee for some information against which it can judge the effectiveness or otherwise of the Government's action in this important matter.
The 33rd report of the 1983–84 Session deals with the economy of stores support. The Ministry of Defence has stores held centrally with a value of £5 billion. The Committee considered that the figures suggested a general level of overstocking. We have made that point again and again over the years, and it has always been denied. This time we had the unique advantage of benefiting, if that is the right word, from a major disaster. In 1983 there was a major fire at the central ordnance depot in Donnington, which destroyed stocks with a book value of £169 million. The Ministry decided to replace only £54 million-worth of the stocks that were lost. Why did it not replace the whole of that £169 million-worth? That was the most interesting question of all.
The Ministry of Defence felt that some of those stocks were not important. The Ministry's answer to why it did

not buy all these stocks again seemed to us to be wholly inadequate. We asked for the basis of the assessment of what was required and, as we state in our report. the Ministry seemed to view those excess stocks with some equanimity. The Committee was concerned that more than two thirds of the Donnington stocks did not need to be replaced. What is the basis of need for the central depot stocks that exist in other parts of the country?
Invisibles are stocks that are held not centrally but in various sheds and hangars in different parts of the country. Only the RAF knows what it holds locally. It holds £900 million-worth. The Royal Navy thinks that it holds about £270 million-worth, and the Army has not a clue. That cannot be right when we are dealing with £5 billion-plus of what we call invisibles, because we do not know how many there are. It cannot be right that there is such lax control. That laxity of control was denied again and again, as we were able to show in the case of the Donnington fire.
There are two important aspects of this overstocking. First, there are the interest and storage charges on surplus, and with £5 billion-plus worth of stocks interest charges alone amount to much more than £500 million a year. The second point is that excess stocks mean greater deterioration and more rapid obsolescence. It is the easiest thing in the world to over-order just to ensure that there is always enough. In certain stores that policy may just be acceptable, but it is certainly not acceptable in the generality of supplies.
We note with interest that there will be a review of stock holding and that it will not be inhibited from examining the need for separate supply organisations for each of the three services. There may be a chance of merging some of those activities. I understand that the review is nearly complete, and we may return to this matter at the end of the year.
The 6th report of 1984–85 deals with the housing benefit scheme. There used to be two different schemes which provided assistance with rent on the one hand and rates on the other, and those schemes caused problems for local authorities and the DHSS. Under the consultative document that was issued initially, the predominant spur to reform was that the scheme would be easier for claimants to understand, easier to operate and would have a third advantage of reducing the work of the public sector manpower. However, claimants found the scheme difficult to understand, it has been difficult to operate and a significant number of claimants have had to apply to more than one office to get their full entitlement. In addition, the scheme has not produced public service manpower savings. That fact emerged ever more clearly as time went on.
The explanatory note to the Bill that introduced housing benefit said that it was expected that local authorities would require 1,500 or 1,600 more staff, but that there would be fewer civil servants. In practice, although there was a net reduction of 1,900 Civil Service staff — a reduction of 2,400 plus an extra 500 because of increased take up—the number of local authority staff increased by 3,500. The requirement for extra staff has been double what was expected.
Far from an overall reduction of 800 in the number of Civil Service and local authority staff, there has been a net increase of 1,600. Those were the figures at the time of our investigation. They may have changed a little, but my information is that the position has not improved much, if at all.
We were worried because the new scheme was introduced in great haste and so many problems arose that the Secretary of State found it necessary to set up an independent review in the very first year. Local authorities had not been effectively warned of the complexity and volatility of the cases that the DHSS was handing over to them, and proper investigations were not made into the ability of local authorities to cope with the increased work load. It is axiomatic that the operational implications and costs of new schemes should be considered in detail before their introduction, but that clearly was not done in this case. Nothing like this must ever happen again. Many people ought to be ashamed of introducing such a scheme with so little preparation.
The Committee's ninth report deals with the monitoring and control of nationalised industries. The Committee regrets that the National Audit Act did not extend the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General to nationalised industries. Unfortunately, the industries did not understand the way in which the PAC works. They thought that we would be busy querying all their commercial decisions. In fact, the Committee wants to know whether the decisions are commercial decisions and are not the results of arm twisting by the Government. In that way, the PAC would be the natural ally of the industries.
Of course, not all the decisions of nationalised industries will be commercial decisions. We would see which were commercial decisions and try to promote the advancement of commercial understanding as their main preoccupation. If some decisions were not commercial and the Government wished industries to adopt a course that cost money, the cash for such purposes would have to be found separately. That could be done by payments such as those made to British Rail for commuter services.
The Public Accounts Committee is exactly the right body to understand the division between business requirements and political realities. Not many organisations are able to combine those two difficult functions, but the PAC can do so.
The nationalised industries should have welcomed the involvement of the PAC, as should the Government, because we could have separated some of the decisions that the Government have to make when they resort to the not very happy solution of twisting the arms of nationalised industries rather than understanding that, if nationalised industries are to be successful, commercial realities should be a priority. The omission of such matters from the National Audit Act was a lost opportunity and I believe that eventually we shall have to return to this subject.
I wish to make special mention of the normal controls of nationalised industries, which are extensive and involve control of the corporate plan, monitoring of returns, setting financial targets, performance indicators, appraisals of investment, and the setting of external financing limits and prices.
We are regularly concerned about the function and operation of those controls and how efficient, effective and worthwhile such procedures are in nationalised industries' pursuit of their objectives. We are seeing that the role of EFLs is conflicting with other objectives. The Department of Trade and Industry told us that unless the EFLs were firm limits they had little purpose. But if they are firm

limits, what happens to all the other controls? The DTI seemed to support the Treasury view that EFLs take priority.
The Department of Energy had some reservations about the primacy of EFLs, and it was apparent to us that there was a divergence of view that needs to be resolved. A serious issue is at stake. If the EFLs are the dominant controls, where does that leave medium-term planning? Not only are nationalised industries shackled by undercover political involvement, but even when they have a sensible plan for development, which might be readily financed in the private sector, because it is profitable, right and sensible, if the EFL is tightened, the plans of those industries will have to be recast from year to year and perhaps even more frequently. That cannot make sense in the operations of our nationalised industries.
The 17th report of the PAC for 1984–85 dealt with the general dental service. Dentists in the service are paid on a piecework basis for the various forms of treatment. Fees are set to cover average practice expenses and to provide an average net income agreed by the Government. The gross annual income varies widely. In 1983 the average was £42,000, but the income of individual dentists ranged from almost zero to, in one case, £225,669.
Millions of claims are submitted each year to the Dental Estimates Board without independent verification. The amount of paperwork is so voluminous that the board cannot deal with it in anything like a proper way. Because of that, it has been suggested that there is a substantial blank cheque element for dentists in the present arrangements.
We asked the DHSS what steps it took to investigate the high earnings of some dentists. The Department told us that expensive treatments required prior approval, but it had no information on whether unnecessary dental treatment was widespread and accepted that it was ultimately dependent on the integrity of the profession.
The Department and the profession are worried that a small minority might bring dentistry into disrepute, and they have persuaded Ministers to set up a committee of inquiry to examine the extent of unnecessary treatment within the general dentist service. The Department has also advanced to 1985 the date for the installation of a computer that will be able to check the records of dentists. Because of the wide differences in earnings, that is a sensible move, and it is another example of how the PAC operates. We do not merely produce reports and ensure that they are acted upon, as they usually are. Often, Departments anticipate our work when they know that we are interested in a certain subject and they try to find a solution or anticipate our conclusions before we produce the report. This is also valuable and indicates the useful way in which we are able to work with Departments.
There are just two other reports besides those mentioned on the Order Paper which I need to cover briefly because they raise general principles, besides being important in themselves.
The first is the 13th report of 1984–85 on the Forestry Commission. There is one important question here which really must be brought to the attention of the House. When sales of land are made by the Forestry Commission, there is no disclosure, following the sale, of the price realised. In ordinary circumstances, such concealment might be found difficult to justify. In the light of the sale of Hamilton college of education for what amounted to little


more than a song, there is something seriously amiss with a policy which allows the sale of public assets without the public knowing anything about the price realised.
We were quite unconvinced by the Forestry Commission, which felt that secrecy was the best way to get the best price. It might be acceptable in the private sector, but when we are dealing with public assets, even if there were to be some diminution in the price, which I cannot accept without further information, there is a need for public disclosure, because this is the only way in which we can be assured that everything is as it ought to be in this very troubled world. We intend to return to this matter.
The other is the 24th report of 1984–85, on the dockyards. In April this year the Government published a document on the future of the royal dockyards. Three options were suggested: a trading fund, commercial management—the Government's preferred option—and privatisation. Mr. Levene, then the personal adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence, and now the chief of defence procurement, proposed that firms should tender for the exclusive use of facilities, and the rest of the Navy's programme would be open to competition. There are more details of the scheme, but our criticism centres on the assessment of the savings put to us.
The evidence that we took was among the weakest that we have received during this Parliament. The calculations given provided us with no valid basis on which to judge whether any increase in efficiency would result from the Government's preferred option. We noted that the net saving might be as little as 3 per cent. of operating costs over a 10-year period. Meanwhile, there are certain interim measures that are being implemented and savings of 2 per cent. are expected here. So the situation is that, over and above the interim measures, a figure of 1 per cent. minimum net savings is expected.
It is on the tenuous basis of savings of 1 per cent. that this is the preferred option. When challenged, the Ministry of Defence stated that the prospect of a major change ahead was a discipline for the Ministry of Defence to be encouraged to achieve the savings. Would that such disciplines proved effective everywhere. We asked that the information on expected savings be much more reliably based than that which has been given to us.
We work continuously. Members of the Public Accounts Committee retain their enthusiasm and their desire to improve the efficiency, the effectiveness and the economy of the public administration and remain determined to get value for money. Most important, the Committee continues to undertake its duties to the House.

Sir Michael Shaw: I must straight away congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the way in which he has presented our case this afternoon, covering a tremendous amount of ground very lucidly and bringing out the important points that were so often the centre of our discussions. We all join my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) in paying tribute to him for the way in which he has conducted our proceedings.
There is no doubt that year by year—and I have been on and off the Public Accounts Committee for some time —the character of the Committee has changed, not out

of recognition but considerably. There is no doubt—and it is partly due to the chairmanship in recent years—that the members of the Committee have had much more say and been encouraged to make far greater contributions to our proceedings. I believe that to be right.
Undoubtedly, a new era came into being after the new legislation and the new status of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are now receiving much fuller reports and, of course, the scope of our work is widening greatly. We should also give credit to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for the work that they are developing because we are still in the early stages of what that department will become. This is not just creating departments for the sake of it; it is for a very real and necessary purpose—to try to ensure that not only is money properly spent, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but that value for money is achieved.
Going hand in hand with the increased expertise of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and, dare I say, the continued enthusiasm of the Public Accounts Committee looking into the reports presented to it, is the improved expertise of the staff in the Departments. This, too, is important. We dealt with it the last time that we had a full debate on the Public Accounts Committee, so I will not go into it again now, but I hope that we continue to see this improvement in the expertise of the staff dealing with accountancy matters.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and rather disagree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne because I believe that our work, far from disheartening civil servants, encourages them. Above all, it encourages better management, because one of the failings within the Departments is that the leaders take too much interest in policy and too little in expert management. The more we encourage good management, the greater service we are doing for the whole of Government activity.
I picked up this vast bundle of papers that we had to look at. Our Chairman was not too disheartened. This afternoon he had clearly recovered from the shock of going over that volume of paper once more. Year by year the volume of paper plonked on our desks, to be read before the next meeting, seems to get bigger and bigger. We do our best, and I hope that the Chairman will not chide us too much if occasionally we have failed to read all the documents before the start of the meeting. Nevertheless, that better documentation and the better reports that we receive from the Comptroller and Auditor General help us in our work and lead to better reports from the Committee.
I do not wish to go into great detail on these reports, but there are two in particular on which I should like to touch. The 33rd report for the Session 1983–84 deals with the economy of store support at the Ministry of Defence. We had an interesting interrogation, and the report is typical of our work. The subject is routine, but it changes in character and is complex. The store problem in the Ministry of Defence is unlike any other store problem. Not many industrial concerns will experience the same problems, which are caused by the changing needs of our forces, the tying together of the different services and the linking of our forces with NATO forces. All such considerations remain constantly under review.
The report rightly makes some criticisms. Our report and the report by Mr. Levene make it clear that much


expertise is involved in store keeping by the services. Like all human endeavour, this endeavour is not always perfect. It was right for us to voice our objections and criticisms.
I welcome Mr. Levene's appointment. Originally he was the Secretary of State's personal assistant. An important matter is involved. In a discussion on 13 March we heard that the basis for certain actions had been contained in a letter from the permanent under-secretary of state. We asked why that letter had not been made available to us. The permanent under-secretary, in a letter which was presented to us on the day that we sought to investigate the matter, told us that
Mr. Levene presented his report on stockholdings and re-provisioning procedures to the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 June 1984.
That means that a report existed. He went on to say:
We regard Mr. Levene's Report as helpful and constructive and are reviewing policies and procedures in accordance with its recommendations.
There was a report, and it was being acted upon.
The question was whether such reports should remain confidential to the Secretary of State. The discussion in Committee was lively, and it confirmed what I believe to be the right decision. It confirmed that, although it was reasonable that any advice given while the Secretary of State was making up his mind should be confidential, when a decision was finally made and the reasons for that decision are stated to be a certain report, that report should be available. Sir Gordon Downey set out the position clearly when he said:
As Sir Clive has pointed out I have thought it right and reasonable that the National Audit Office should have access to these papers at some stage because otherwise I do not see that I am in a position to give this Committee any assurance about the conclusions reached and the basis on which decisions have been taken. It is a convention which has been accepted by the Committee that information provided internally by officials—although I do not think Mr. Levene was an official at the Ministry at the time but by analogy the same may apply—to Ministers would not necessarily be provided as such to the Committee. But access to those papers by me at least provides the Committee with some assurance if I can look at them on the Committee's behalf.
The Chairman agreed with that on our behalf. I should like the Minister to confirm that that general principle is accepted by the Government.
The 21st report for the Session 1984–85 deals with the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Can the Minister confirm that borrowings from the Consolidated Fund are likely to peak at about £1,000 million before starting to fall? That expectation is voiced in the report and in the evidence. Does the Minister have a clearer picture now?
There was a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the ECGD about the way in which the ECGD draws up its accounts and how they are dealt with by the Treasury. Any amount which needs to be borrowed by the ECGD has to be shown in the accounts. We wanted to know how this would be shown by the Treasury. The answer is that the impact would eventually show up in the public sector borrowing requirement.
The evidence seemed to show that there was not entire agreement about the sums involved. I put questions to Mr. Gill and to Mr. Judd of the Treasury and received an answer in part from Mrs. Case, who said:
ECGD have to make provisions because they draw up their accounts on a commercial basis. Of course the Treasury has to take account of the sort of figures Mr. Gill has been describing, in terms of drawing up the Budget forecast because those cashflow figures have an impact on PSBR.
I said that that was what I understood. When I asked whether she would accept Mr. Gill's figures, she said:

We are still discussing them with him. The sort of figures he is describing are the figures which are currently being assessed and being taken account of in the Treasury.
Presumably discussion has now taken place and finality has been reached. Do the ECGD and the Treasury agree on the figures necessary for calculating the PSBR? If there is a difference of opinion, whose opinion will prevail—that of the Treasury or that of the ECGD?
Do the objectives of the ECGD still remain the same? I understand that the Government are determined to ensure that British exporters have at least the quality of assistance that is available to their foreign competitors in seeking foreign orders. I fully support that. I have always opposed free trade, but I am strongly in favour of free and fair trade. When I say "fair trade", I mean trade that is fair to the British trader, because I know jolly well that every other country will do all that it can to look after its own citizens. Is it now part of Government policy to use ECGD, where necessary, to place the British exporter on level terms with his foreign competitors? If so, what are the arrangements, if any, for disclosing that fact in the accounts of the ECGD?
In conclusion, although the work that we do in the PAC is often not very glamorous—it involves going over old subjects time and again to see what has happened, what is happening and what is going to happen—unless that work continues to be done to the best of our ability, I believe that shortcomings will go undiscovered and the Government and the taxpayer will be the losers.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Public Accounts Committee is the senior Committee of the House. As the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir. M. Shaw) said, its work is often unglamorous, unsexy and unsung. It is perhaps rather sad that, despite all the good work done by that Committee, as evidenced in the large number of reports before us today, there are not more hon. Members, particularly those who are not members of the Committee, participating in its work today.
I sincerely congratulate the Chairman and members of the Committee, who produced these most worthwhile reports. I was also pleased to note that there is a new breath of democracy in the proceedings of the Committee. I congratulate not only the members of the Committee, but the Chairman who, both generally and in his presentation today, has added enormous credit to this non-partisan Committee which works very hard indeed on behalf of the British taxpayer.
I was tempted to stray into consideration of a number of the Committee's reports—in particular, that on the management of the overseas estate, the 15th report, and the second report of 1984–85 on diplomatic manpower. It is true that the crude percentage reduction in the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has, in a number of cases, had very adverse effects on the quality of our overseas representation. Similar considerations apply to the British Council and other overseas matters. I will. however, avoid that temptation and spend a short time on a matter which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) kindly pointed out, has a certain constituency interest for me—the report on the evasion and enforcement of vehicle excise duty, which was ordered to be printed in March last year. The Treasury


minute in reply was printed in August last year. Clearly, quite a lot of water has flowed since that time and there is a need for some updating on this subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the level of fines. I am pleased that the report drew attention to the ludicrously inadequate fines imposed by the courts on vehicle excise duty payment defaulters. The average fine at the time of the compilation of the report was a mere £36. That cannot act as a deterrent when set against the annual duty of £100 for private vehicles. The honest motorist would endorse a substantial increase in fines for the tax dodger whom he or she is effectively subsidising.
Paragraph 4 of the Treasury's response to that report stated:
The Committee's concern at the low average level of fines imposed on evaders is being drawn to the attention of the Magistrates' Association, and in Scotland to the District Courts Association, the Sheriffs' Association and the Association of Sheriffs Principal.
It would be interesting to know whether those bodies have indeed issued guidance to magistrates and others as a result of that concern being drawn to their attention.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has a strong constituency interest in this matter. I am sure that he will not mind my helping him by saying that in 1984 the average court fine had risen to £44, but he will know that that is less than 10 per cent. of the total penalties that could be prescribed by statute, which would be five times the annual rate of duty. That may be of help to the hon. Gentleman in his argument.

Mr. Anderson: That figure is above the rate of inflation and, therefore, a marginal improvement. I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, as I was somewhat puzzled by a letter from the director of the Department of Transport driver and vehicle licensing centre who wrote to the Financial Times on 15 October:
The average penalty at £63 was 25 per cent. higher than the cost of a six monthly licence.
That is at least some comfort.
The report mentions local campaigns. The Department has so far run 50 intensive local campaigns with the help of the police. Four campaigns are under way or have been held this month in London, south Wales, Manchester and Cumbria. The campaigns are to be welcomed, provided that any additional work generated can be met by an increase in staff.
At the time of the report, February 1984, no Scottish police forces had been prepared to co-operate in one of these local blitz campaigns. As evasion in Scotland is said to be 25 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country, it would be interesting to know whether the Scottish police forces are now prepared to give a higher priority to countering the evasion of vehicle excise duty. Has there been any change in their attitude?
The results of a survey prepared by the Government statistical service were published by the Department of Transport in its statistics bulletin in December last year. The key finding of that survey was that the cost to the country of evasion was £90 million per annum, or 4 per cent. of the total, which clearly is a substantial increase.

Compared with the 7 to 9 per cent. in 1979–80, the loss of £90 million in revenue is substantial and more should be done to collect it.
Paragraph 8 of the report mentions a procedural problem in Scotland—that two witnesses are required as corroboration of evasion in these reports. It was suggested that it should be recommended to Ministers that that procedural need should be changed. It would be interesting to learn whether the Ministers have considered this recommendation and whether there is to be any amendment in the Scottish law relating to corroboration.
The abolition of vehicle excise duty has been tempting for successive Governments, and it has been discussed for the past 15 years. The Committee recommends a switch from vehicle excise duty to a tax on petrol if evasion remains a major problem. A survey published in December last year shows that the problem has now been substantially contained, if not resolved. The possibility of switching to a tax on petrol was considered by Mr. William Rodgers when he was Secretary of State for Transport in 1977–78 and by the present Secretary of State for Social Services when he was Minister of Transport in 1979.
At that time, the option of abolition was rejected on the basis that too large a share of the burden of motoring taxation would be carried by the high-mileage rural motorist and essential business users. In 1979 it was estimated that such a tax would add in excess of £100 million per annum to business costs. An increase of at least 38p per gallon on petrol would be necessary to compensate for the loss of revenue from vehicle excise duty and the spiral of inflation would be refuelled at a stroke.
From a constituency point of view, I take comfort from the fact that no Government are likely to be so bold as to impose an additional 38p on a gallon of petrol. There is a wide range of opposition — the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the Motor Agents Association—to such a suggestion.
I was interested in what the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport said about necessary staff changes if work on evasion were to be increased. I note that the report urges the Department to ensure that no reports of offences are abandoned purely through lack of staff. In paragraph 12 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, it was suggested that the Department of Transport had insufficient staff to handle all the reported cases of suspected evasion. During the examination of witnesses on 4 February last year, the Chairman asked the permanent secretary at the Department what increase in staff would be required to deal with that problem. In reply, Sir Peter Lazarus said:
If we were to try to deal with every report and carry it on for as long as we could, we would probably need of the order of an additional 1,000 staff, as compared with the 900 odd that I have on enforcement at the moment. Almost certainly that would not produce the best net revenue position. We think it far more likely that we would get the maximum net revenue improvement if we had something like an additional 400 or perhaps 500 staff, but we would want to take them on at perhaps 150 a year or something like that.
There is no serious suggestion that the number of staff on enforcement duty should be doubled, but the professional view of the permanent secretary is that a further 500 staff could be recruited cost effectively. I was surprised that there was no response from the Treasury to that point. There has been no sign whether the Treasury accepts that


it would he cost effective to recruit the staff required to carry out enforcement work. It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on that.
I remind the Minister that next year, as a result of new computers coming on stream at Swansea, more than 500 staff will no longer be needed. Since 1982, productivity has increased by over 15 per cent., so this matter should be looked at carefully in relation to the staffing implications.
It has been suggested that draconian measures would increase enforcement and that wheel clamps should be considered. That would almost certainly run foul of public opinion — although there may be a case for the introduction of clamps as an enforcement measure on an experimental basis in areas of high evasion.
I commend the Committee on the quality of its work and report and look forward to the Minister's response.

Sir Peter Hordern: First, I wish to say what a pleasure it was to be under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He gave, as one would expect, a thorough and comprehensive account of our sittings—as a managing director does in the report of the companies under his command. The rest of us are fortunate in not having to follow him in every detail—we can pick out the nuggets that appeal to us.
I wish to discuss regional policy. It is a topic that has come before us many times in the past 12 years. We have questioned the Department of Trade and Industry since it was founded on the efficacy of its regional policy, the results of which have not been as satisfactory as we or the Department had hoped they would be. We have reported many times on this subject and no less than £20,000 million has been spent during the past 20 years on regional aid. We now have to ask what we have to show for this expenditure.
In 1965, unemployment in the north was 2·5 per cent. It is now over 18 per cent. In the north-west it was 1·6 per cent., but it is now 15·8 per cent. In Wales unemployment was 2·3 per cent., but it is now over 16 per cent., and in Scotland it was 3 per cent. and it is now 15 per cent. It is true that unemployment has occurred in all the developed economies, and that it affects manufacturing industry most severely, but I think it is correct to say that unemployment has affected Britain more than other countries. Regional incentives and regional development grants do not seem able to stem this adverse tide. We must ask whether the present system of regional incentives, which we have had for many years, is as good as it should be.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke of the way in which the work of our Committee had developed over the years. He said that the Comptroller and Auditor General was now more concerned with value for money. This is a developing trend, and I am sure that the Comptroller will produce many more worthwhile reports on value for money for us to consider.
When we have, as I think we have in this case, a longstanding role by a Department to produce incentives for the regions which palpably have not produced results, we as a Committee have the responsibility to go further. Nobody will question the right of the Comptroller to consider value for money, although when it was originally suggested I think it was viewed with suspicion by the Treasury Bench. After a time, and under successive

Governments—because party politics is not involved in this issue—it becomes necessary to look at a broad form of policy and to ask whether the institutions that serve that policy are as good as they should be.
In our review of regional policy we found that the very large capital grants that had been made over the years employed relatively few people. For example, the chemical industry received some £1,400 million, yet employed a minimal number of people. Firms such as Dunlop are attracted to Liverpool, but as soon as the recession bites, large national and international firms in places such as Liverpool close their factories and take their regional grants with them. Therefore, it is right to make the grant dependent upon jobs rather than on the size of capital investment. I understand that this is the nature of the change being brought about by my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Even so, we have been spending some £700 million a year on capital intensive projects, which is double the rate in West Germany. That in itself is an indication of the need for a review.
It is disappointing, as our report shows, that academic research has not been able to identify a particular success in regional policy, although overall that research is unanimous in saying that such a policy is of some use. It is not surprising that academic research has not been able to point to particular successes. If there has ever been a growth industry, it is academic research into regional aid. That research has not been directed at alternative means of regional support, but at existing means in order to determine how effective it is.
It is true that the PAC, in its deliberations, is supposed to question not Government policy but its administration, and what I have to say now is strictly in terms of administration and not of policy. Furthermore, it applies to all Governments, of whatever nature, over a long period of time. We cannot be inhibited in this debate from stating our views. My view is that regional incentives, as they have been practised in this country, are wasteful, out-of-date and ineffective. The reason is not that they are poorly administrated, but there are too many Government agencies competing with each other to pursue the same objective, and not enough effort is made to see whether these objectives could be reached by other means.
I do not know how many different forms of Government' assistance there are for places such as Merseyside, but Liverpool has a large number of empty factories which were built by different Government agencies acting, apparently, in ignorance of one another. We are too ready to accept the need for the existence of so many different institutions without questioning their relevance in changed conditions, and we have failed to observe the lessons that other countries teach us.
Comparisons with regional grants in other countries have been made by the Department and by academic research, but, as far as I know, there has been no study of the institutions that direct that regional aid. Why is it that the United States and Germany—two most successful economies—manage without a Department of Trade and Industry? In this country we have an enormous Department, which has grown substantially over the years. I asked Department of Trade officials that question on one occasion and felt like the man in the Batman cartoon. I shall not ask that again. I ask it here because the officials are not before us. What use is that Department if it is not providing more jobs?
The lesson of regional policy is that a comprehensive approach is necessary: not just regional grants for industry, but improvements to the urban aid programme, tax cuts, lower national insurance contributions in the regions to cheapen the cost of work and regional rate relief. Why is a package of these measures not considered for the regions, instead of sticking to the tried and failed mechanism of regional grants? If we want to understand why some parts of the country are more successful than others, we must study the composition of the successful areas in this and other countries.
Why is so much of the Civil Service and the Ministry of Defence based in London and the home counties? Why do we pay a London weighting allowance for civil servants, but not a Liverpool weighting allowance? That is where the money should go. It is hard to define what constitutes a successful regional policy. Experience in Belgium, France and the United States suggests that tax concessions for operations in the regions are likely to have a greater benefit than cash handouts. I cannot understand why the Treasury is so singularly lacking in imagination as not to experiment with regional differences in national insurance contributions, corporation tax or tax exempt municipal bonds, as they do in the United States.
The Foreign Office has the reputation of being the most conservative institution in Whitehall, but in my view the Treasury wins hands down. What other institution would be so lavish in accepting waste and misdirection of taxpayers' money in terms of getting results, and yet be so niggardly with its pounds? It is true that we have seen substantial growth in business expansion schemes, but the Treasury fails to recognise that to achieve success in the regions we must reduce the cost of work.
From what I have seen of Liverpool and other cities in the north, I am persuaded that there is no single solution to rising unemployment in the regions. I believe that regional development grants and urban development grants should be handled by the same Minister and that that Minister should be the Secretary of State for the Environment. Each city or region has its own characteristics which demand an individual approach. It is more sensible to improve the environment and reduce the cost of work in those areas than to give money to companies. We must review the institutions and machinery that are responsible for distributing aid in all its forms, not the efficiency of regional aid. Perhaps that is something that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young could best carry out as a neutral but primarily interested party.
The purport of our report is that regional aid has been, and remains, unsatisfactory and that it is time for a change.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made some interesting comments about regional aid. Initially, I thought his conclusion would be that regional aid was not a necessary or important part of the way in which our economy is run. I was pleased to hear that that was not his conclusion. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in my bitter experience, in my constituency the removal of even the current system of assistance is viewed harshly. More importantly, the businesses in my constituency, especially those which were attracted to the area by regional grants, view its

removal extremely harshly. My constituency is unique in the south-west in being cut out of regional grants. The Government considered that Solihull and Stratford needed assistance because their unemployment problems are greater than those in the far south-west, although that is manifestly not so.
I do not criticise the Government for all their efforts to reduce national insurance contributions and corporation tax, and all their microeconomic measures, but they pale into abject insignificance beside the exchange rate, which has been maintained to the detriment of the manufacturing sector during the past five or six years. A reduction of 1 per cent. in national insurance is insignificant if overseas competitors are 15 or 20 per cent. better off because of the exchange rates. If there is a real desire to put some buoyancy back into the remoter regions of Britain, the entire philosophy and economic base of exchange rates must be examined. This matter is not strictly within the confines of the reports, although there are so many reports that this debate is as close to a Consolidated Fund debate as any we could have in the House. Any matter could be raised if we so desired.
Although I am not a member of the Committee, I believe that a great deal of valuable work has been done. More publicity could be justified for the work done on the Committee, which does not receive the recognition that it deserves. The work done by the Committee Chairman has already been praised by several hon. Members. Although I was not on the Committee, it sounded from the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that that praise was deserved, so I shall add my thanks.
Oddly, although specific matters have been raised, the wrong people are here to listen. We have discussed defence, housing benefit, regional aid and any number of subjects that tickle our fancy or catch our eye, but the man responsible for the detail of the administration which has been the subject of complaint is not on the Government Front Bench. The Treasury has a broad sweep of responsibility, but nearly all the difficulties discussed are primarily somebody else's responsibility.
I have glanced through the documents, although I cannot confess that I have read every line. I was determined to do so, until somebody got them for me. However, a number of points caught my eye. I was especially struck by the Donnington store evidence. There are one or two magnificent lines which are worth incorporating into after-dinner speeches, but there are also more serious aspects. The details are well known. There was a fire, and a great deal of stock was ruined. It had a book value, but the Government chose to replace about a third of it. I found the Government's response unsatisfactory:
While agreeing that lessons can be learnt from the Donnington fire, the MOD does not accept that the decision not to replace most of the stocks lost in the fire at COD Donnington is evidence of excessive holdings. Because the replacement cost of certain stores is very much in excess of the disposable value, it may be cost-effective to retain existing holdings but may not be cost-effective, or even possible, to replace them.
The response must be read several times to get the gist of it, but it does not deal with the question. The real question is whether the stocks should have been bought in the first place. If one has four overcoats and they are stolen, only one is likely to be replaced if one gets money from the insurance company. But the company might ask


why four overcoats were bought in the first place. The question to be asked about the Donnington fire must be why the stocks were bought in the first place.
I admit that the following is hearsay, but there are some defence establishments in my part of the country. I meet and talk to their representatives, and occasionally we discuss things that we should not discuss. The general view among people in responsible posts is that there is a degree of slackness and overstocking. There was a magnificent reference in one report. A witness questioned on the amount of stuff stolen replied with some pride that stealing was not a problem. By chance, I discussed this with a constituent, who said that there was nothing in there worth pinching. He said that most of the stock was so old and out of date that it was better to go out and buy new. That is perhaps an exaggeration, but there is a general feeling that all is not well in that area. The Donnington fire is good evidence of that. I hope that the Committee will not give up on that matter and that it will return to it to consider the outcome, because real hard money is involved. To cover the loan costs about £500 or £600 million a year. It is not difficult to think of a better use for that money.
One report discussed the housing benefit scheme. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was not too kind about the reality of what happened with the housing benefit scheme. In many parts of the country—mine was not the worst—what occurred was not far short of obscene chaos. There was no preparation. People were without benefit for weeks. We are not talking about people who could go to the bank, merrily borrow a few hundred pounds and curse the Government of the day because they had not received their cheque. Those people were living on a week-to-week basis. The preparation for the administration of the housing benefit scheme was a disaster.
The Citizens' Advice Bureau has given me several examples, collected within the past months, of manifold problems that still exist. It states:
Several clients have told us forms they submitted have been lost.
The capacity of Government Departments to lose forms never ceases to amaze me—not that I always believe that my constituents have sent them. The CAB also said that there had been,
failure to process claims for HB within the 14 days…due to extreme delays in processing of claims for HB by the HB Section of the Finance Departments.
The CAB also alleges a
vast backlog of work and administration on claims for housing benefit".
We all know that this is true. It is not so bad in my constituency, although I have pursued five housing benefit cases for constituents of London boroughs who happen to be students in London. The delay is beyond total comprehension. The irony is that we were told that the system would be more efficient and reduce the number of Government employees, but, as has been pointed out, there are almost 2,000 extra employees. Nevertheless, that is not my main point. That is history, and I hope that one can learn something from the mistakes that undoubtedly have been made.
My main consideration is to warn the Government, not from malice but from reading the position—sometimes one sees Government policies better from the Opposition Benches rather than the Government Benches — that such is their enthusiasm to reform social security benefits

under what is generally known as the Fowler review before the general election, which is only two and a half years away—I may even agree with some of the reforms, but we shall have to wait and see—that it could lead to a second dose of chaos on a large scale. I ask the Treasury, as only Treasury Ministers are present, to demand of other Departments that the administrative details of the scheme that is finally produced are carefully thought out and crosschecked. Otherwise, great hardship will be created—ironically, unintentionally. I may argue with the Government over benefits, and claim that their policy is causing hardship, but the hardship of which I am now speaking is not intentional. It is born out of chaos, and in many cases that is worse than any intended consequence. When I deal with constituency cases and the Departments co-operate well, I am aware that for every 10 constituents who come, 110 do not, and I wonder who sorts out their problems.
My third and final point was in some ways covered by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I have not quite the same interest to declare as he has, and I cannot honestly say that I would defend the road fund licence on the basis of the Swansea licensing centre. However, at times allies are found in peculiar quarters, and I, too, ask the House to defend the road fund licence. I remember the arguments in 1979 with the then Minister of Transport, whom I have, by chance, got to know better since then, and I was never convinced that evasion was as high as the Department claimed. I do not wish to pretend that evasion does not occur. Obviously, it does. But the claim that about 11 per cent. of cars on the roads are without road fund licences has never withstood even the most cursory examination in a car park or wherever the idea to check a few cars flashes through one's mind. I have never believed that evasion is as high as that. I asked the then Minister where the statistics came from. Evidence that the statistics came from anything other than a not very accurate throw at a darts board was never adequately produced. Nevertheless, I do not wish to underestimate evasion, because £100 for a road fund licence is a large sum.
The matter is of great sensitivity in my constituency. I live 300 miles from the House. Little public transport exists in rural areas, such as my constituency, and, no matter what the Transport Bill does, there will never be a great deal of public transport in remote areas. It may exist between towns, but not in the countryside. The suggestion of a 38p increase on petrol to cover the money at present raised by the road fund licence must be carefully considered. Such a change would undoubtedly transfer taxation from people who must drive only a few miles to people who must travel many miles. Clearly, some of my constituents would benefit from that change as much as people in other areas, but generally speaking such a policy would transfer road fund taxation from London and the wealthy south-east to Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, the north-east and east Anglia. I hope that the Government will not take that course.
Unfortunately, the Committee did not have the power to investigate the virtue or otherwise of the Government's policy, which has increased the tax take on a gallon of petrol from 44 per cent. to 55 per cent. during the past six years. Nor did the Committee have the power to ask why the road fund licence has doubled in cost. Clearly, we can argue whether those levels of taxation are justified, but when we make such calculations we endlessly ignore the


petroleum revenue tax which, as I occasionally point out, raises a further useful sum. If my constituents did not use the roads, there would be no petroleum revenue tax.
It would be useful if the Minister could today say that the idea of abolishing the road fund licence and transferring the tax to petrol, which would require an increase of between 30p and 38p per gallon, is out of court.

Mr. Latham: I wish to make it clear that the Committee did not recommend that course of action, and it was one of two alternatives suggested.

Mr Penhaligon: I am aware of that, but it is one of those ideas that keeps popping up. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity of pushing it back into its particular pocket. On the face of it, the idea has great appeal. There is no point in denying that. However, it would be bad for remoter areas.
Finally, I wonder whether the way in which we review the reports on the Floor of the House could be changed so that more opportunities to debate them existed, but with a shorter period per subject. It is lunatic to think that a sensible intense debate will take place about such a volume of reports. The debate would be a shambles if every hon. Member raised every subject, and the poor Minister, who is not responsible for much of it, could not conceivably engage in the sort of in-depth rows which one may wish to have about these matters. Could not the House consider changing its procedures in favour of a series of short debates on specific reports as they arise with the Minister responsible present? If we had the responsible Ministers here today, the entire Cabinet and all the junior Ministers—about 120—would be present. Indeed, it would not be a bad idea to have 120 hon. Members present to discuss the report: but 120 Ministers would be beyond the pale.
I ask those responsible to consider the way in which we discuss and analyse this useful work. The present procedure is not the most sensible or rational way, and a review on the Floor of the House is inevitable if the work is to be taken seriously and is to be seen to be effective.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), and immediately pick up his final point, which has great validity. It is ridiculous that the House is invited to consider some 40 reports of the Public Accounts Committee with a gentle hint in the motion that hon. Members should restrict themselves to about seven of them.
As a member of the PAC, I am well aware that because of the valiant efforts of our respected Chairman, to whom I add my tribute, we get time to debate these matters on the Floor of the House. However, it is usually towards the end of a week and often approaching a recess or some other occasion when the attention of hon. Members may not be devoted to the affairs as closely as it may otherwise be.
I have been keeping careful note of the attendance this afternoon. For most of the time about 15 hon. Members have been present, of whom four are not members of the Committee. Where are the other 635 Members of Parliament who, on every occasion possible both inside and outside the House, pay such attention to obtaining value for money, and who press the Government hard on that? It is sad that so few of them have chosen to attend

this afternoon. It was nice to listen to the hon. Member for Truro, with his usual attractive delivery and sense of fun, and to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who added to the comments made by members of the Committee.
I wish to speak on three of the reports, the first being the 13th report of the 1983–84 Session on the evasion and enforcement of vehicle excise duty. That matter needs to be drawn to the attention of both the House and our constituents. Vehicle excise duty — or VED as it is called in Committee — is paid on all mechanically propelled vehicles kept on public roads, but not on those kept off public roads. The two categories cause a problem.
The Comptroller and Auditor General drew the Committee's attention to the large amount of revenue estimated to be lost through evasion of VED. He spoke about the difficulties of enforcing the current system and about alternative arrangemens that have been considered, but rejected, on several occasions by both the previous and present Administrations. That includes the rejection of an increase in petroleum revenue tax that would obtain the revenue while abolishing the licence.
We all know that such extensive evasion cannot be measured precisely because the driver vehicle licensing centre does not monitor periods when vehicles are kept off the roads and so are not liable to duty. However, the Department of Transport survey indicates an evasion level of 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. for cars and 10 per cent. to 13 per cent. for goods vehicles and motor cycles. In 1982–83, that level of evasion would have resulted in a substantial loss of revenue of about £100 million compared with net proceeds from the tax of about £1,800 million.
To enforce VED, the Department of Transport relies on reports of apparent offences from police officers and traffic wardens. The tracing of offenders is hindered because two thirds of the reports contain no names and addresses. Up to 7·5 per cent. of the central vehicle records is out of date through the delay or failure of motorists to notify changes. That is a substantial figure. We are told that enforcement is to deter evasion rather than to ensure full compliance. The Department's work in 1983 resulted in the recovery of £14·6 million.
When examining witnesses from the Department. the Committee was told that, although the maximum fine for the evasion of duty on cars is £425. the average fine imposed by the courts is only £33·60. The witnesses also observed that the proportion of offenders electing to pay the Department a mitigated penalty fell from 60 per cent. in 1976 to 38 per cent. in 1983.
I asked one witness from the Department, Mr. Lazarus, whether he thought that if the maximum fine were increased substantially that would have a desirable effect. He replied:
I do not myself see any valid relationship between the £425 which is available now and the figure which I quoted to the Committee of the average fine last year which is as low as £33·6.
I then asked him whether, if there were a minimum penalty that the courts could impose, that would be higher than the average penalty imposed in 1983. He agreed that, if Parliament legislated to provide for a minimum penalty that would obviously help a great deal. I think that the appropriate Government officers should consider that.
The loss of revenue of between £70 million and £100 million, with net proceeds of tax being £1,800 million, is a very serious matter. It is ridiculous that the courts should


impose an average penalty of only £33·60. With the risk of detection not being very great, it is little wonder that some people—about 882,000 in 1983—conclude that it is a good deal cheaper to pay the fine if caught than to pay the £100 duty now being demanded. The position is becoming ridiculous. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will discuss the matter with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor with a view to reminding magistrates of the need for fines to act as a real deterrent and to use the penalties available.
Our constitutents are being ripped off by those tax evaders who use their cars on public roads but do not want to pay their duty. I dare say that about £100 million a year would be a very welcome addition to, for example, the social security budget or the overseas aid vote—about which we have heard so much from our constituents during this week when they lobbied us about fighting poverty. Rather than putting 30p or more a gallon on the cost of fuel, we should consider penalties to enforce the existing system.
Another way to improve the detection of evasion would be to change the current system of vehicle registration which makes it difficult to trace offenders because the records are out of date. Why do we not move to the system adopted by Canada and a number of other countries, where an individual has the same registration number throughout his motoring lifetime? The licence plate must carry either the current excise licence stickers, or be replaced annually with another bearing the year of issue. That would get away from cars having to bear a new prefix in August, with the consequent enormous bulge in the delivery of new cars during that month and all the problems that flow from that. The whole question of how we license vehicles should be considered as a matter of urgency by the Department.
I come now to the 33rd report on the economy of stores support, to which the Chairman of the Committee and other hon. Members have referred. The Committee looked at evidence on a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, dealing mainly with stores supplied through central depots. Those stores provide materials to the armed forces as part of a world-wide operation involving enormous assets and heavy operating and capital costs.
We have already heard this afternoon that the stores retain stocks with an approximate replacement book value of more than £5 billion spread over 2·5 million inventory items, and each year issue stores valued at £1,700 million. Overall, stock levels represent three years' normal peacetime issue. The Committee was told that the ranges of individual stores show stock levels of up to seven years peacetime issue, and even higher levels for some parts of some ranges.
Although the Ministry of Defence did not believe that total stockholding was too high, it accepted that in areas within the total figure there were, for a variety of reasons, excessive stocks. The Committee was informed, however, that the general level of overstocking was likely to be much higher than the Ministry had in the past thought.
Reference has been made to the Donnington fire and the substantial amount of material destroyed there. It has been said that, of the £169 million worth of stocks destroyed, £37 million worth was obsolete, that £21 million worth was due to be withdrawn and that £26 million worth represented "falling demand", in that the original calculations were wrong, so that there had been a further category of over-provision in respect of original purchases.
While the House appreciates that obsolescence occurs, there should, surely, within the Ministry of Defence be an efficient computerised system to ensure that large stocks of obsolete or semi-obsolete equipment are not held. I am not satisfied that such an efficient computerised system exists. Indeed, in answer to a question that I put to Sir Clive Whitmore, the permanent secretary to the Department, I was told:
Your concern is absolutely right and it is one which the Department as a whole shares.
He went on to tell the Committee:
Supply Managers are now considering the introduction of a standard system for setting surplus stock warning levels.
Sir Clive also referred to a study group looking into the causes of surpluses. That work should now have been completed. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say what has been the outcome of those two courses of action.
We are told by the Treasury in the 33rd report that the Ministry of Defence agrees that, with such a large range of stores, there are bound to be excessive stocks in some areas but that it does not agree that the level of stocks is generally too high. Why should we be given what appears to be such a complacent reply from the Treasury?
In receiving evidence, the Committee was told that an example of obsolescent stores was the Larkspur range of thermionic radio valves, a range which had been replaced by a system called Clansman. Another category, valued at £21 million, was of stores close to withdrawal from the service but which had not quite reached the withdrawal point. A further category, known by the Ministry of Defence as "falling demand," amounted to a further £26 million. Yet another category, worth £13 million, as of stores where the Ministry of Defence had over-provisioned in its initial purchases.
There were also a couple of miscellaneous categories—sort of throw away lines—one described as £7 million worth of "all-time buys," being buys of stores at the outset of their life. There was also £8 million worth of stores held against possible sales to overseas countries. About that item we are told simply, "We have lost those".
The Treasury's replies on this issue have not been adequate. Nor do they reflect the concern that the Committee expressed. These are vital matters for the taxpayer because we are dealing not with hundreds of millions of pounds but with £5 billion worth of stores. Obsolesent valves, radio sets and other equipment of various types worth £20 million here and £20 million there should not be cluttering up the stores of our armed services.
If we had a proper system of control using all the modern equipment at our disposal, such a situation would not exist. The Committee was deeply concerned about that, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the Treasury's reply has been less than adequate.
We make it clear in paragraph 6 of our report that the Ministry of Defence has agreed to consider the wider lessons that might be learnt about stores inventory as a whole. What lessons has the Ministry learnt and what assurance has the taxpayer that surplus and obsolete stores will not be held at great public expense?
What reduction in the percentage of overall stocks has the Ministry been able to achieve and how much will be saved? What arrangements is the Ministry making for identifying the full acquisitioning and holding costs of stocks and to ensure that such information is taken into


account on a regular basis by those responsible for ordering stocks, for reviewing them, for maintaining stock levels, for arranging disposals and for otherwise managing stores?
What arrangements are to be made for keeping Parliament regularly informed on these issues? There is reference to that in the report from the Treasury, but I am not encouraged greatly by it because it does not say how Parliament will be informed and how we shall have the opportunity to examine the information provided.
What is to happen to stores that become surplus to requirements in the Falklands? Will they be dumped at sea or are they being sold to the islanders, who could make good use of them? I know from two visits that I paid to the Falklands that an old Land Rover in the hands of an islander can rapidly be rebuilt and provide a serviceable vehicle for many years to come. A great deal of aviation fuel is stored in the Falklands. That, after a time, becomes surplus to requirements. Is it being dumped at sea? Could it be used more effectively by the islanders?
The 20th report for the Session 1984–85 deals with arrangements for delivering social security benefits. The 30 separate benefits involved the payment of nearly £31 billion in 1984. The delivery of those benefits resulted in the employment of over 80,000 staff, plus 27,000 people in the Department of Employment. The cost of delivering the benefits to those entitled to them was £1·328 million, an enormous sum. The Committee has been considering ways by which the cost of delivering benefits could be reduced, with consequent benefit to the recipients.
There are four methods by which benefits are delivered. The most common is the post office order book. That accounts for 88 per cent. of deliveries. There are Giro cheques, payable orders and the recently introduced automated credit transfer, which accounts for only 0·5 per cent. of payments. That involves payment direct by the DHSS into a bank or other account—for instance, a building society account—by the automated transfer of funds using computer-produced magnetic tape.
When the Rayner scrutiny examined this matter, the team came to the conclusion that a substantial sum could be saved, and the figure of £50 million was mentioned. The scrutiny team recommended the introduction of direct crediting, a reduction in the frequency of benefit payments and a simplification in administration.
The team noted that the United Kingdom and Irish Republic were alone among the 13 countries considered in paying a high proportion of benefits weekly by order books. We are, therefore, in a unique situation; as a country, we seem to be locked into what has almost become a way of life—the paying of benefits by order books at post offices. The Select Committee on Social Services looked at the matter and substantially endorsed the recommendations, one of which was that benefits be paid less frequently. However, the Government took the view that it was not right to make people change to less frequent payments as many people find them inconvenient.
Behind the questions about whether we should make payments by order in post offices, frequency and so on there is the point that 75 per cent. of the income of the average rural post office comes from social security payment work. There would come a point when the DHSS

could not continue to take away work from those post offices without paying them more for the remaining functions.
We should not retain the expensive and rather old-fashioned method of paying pensions through an order book merely to maintain the rural post office system. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement. We all want to maintain rural post offices as they are an important part of the fabric of our society. It may be public policy to maintain post offices, but they should be subsidised by some other method, rather than that we should continue with this old-fashioned way of paying benefits.
The Select Committee on Social Services recommended that, as an inducement, pensioners accepting ACT should be paid two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears rather than four weeks in arrears. This method was rejected by the Government on the ground that it would cost £50 million and that they had hoped that changes could be achieved without incurring extra cost.
In Committee, we took note of the fact that no assessment had been made of the additional savings that would accrue, although it had been estimated that ACT payments would cost £2 a year each, as against £10 for paying pensions over the post office counter by means of an order book. I understand that the latest estimate is that ACT will cost £6 a year and order books £16. That is a substantial annual cost, and the DHSS should give fresh consideration to the ways and means of offering direct financial inducements—for example, a cash payment of £10 to encourage beneficiaries to change to more effective methods of payment.
I believe that I am right in saying that only 27 per cent. of pensioners do not have a bank account. That is a different picture from that of a few years ago when it was commonly said that half the British population was unbanked. The number of those without a bank account is shrinking more and more, and as it does so, so the opportunity will come to switch more and more people to ACT and to move over to less frequent payments.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services a parliamentary question earlier this year about the possible cash savings to his Department
that would be achieved in a full year on the assumption that pensions were paid by automated credit transfer to those pensioners who on the latest information available to him have a bank account.—[0fficial Report, 16 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 137.]
The answer was, £70 million a year. In answer to another of my parliamentary questions, I discovered that that was equivalent to increasing the Christmas bonus by just over 70 per cent. If everybody were paid by ACT, the Department would have the option either of increasing the Christmas bonus—something for which hon. Members call from time to time — or of using it as a direct financial inducement for people to switch to ACT. That should be discussed, considered and acted upon.
The Department should do something about giving great publicity to the relative costs of different methods of payment to encourage the adoption of the cheapest method of payment. None of us has seen a Government commercial on television pointing out the real costs. I feel sure that if there were some action by the Department and an attempt to persuade people, in the public interest, to switch to reduce costs, there would be a bigger take up.
This is one of the important reports of the PAC and, although it is not on the short list for discussion in the


motion, I felt that, nevertheless, it was worth mentioning. I hope that somewhere in the depths of the Treasury some friendly soul will take account of my points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be leading the Treasury in some useful reforms. Big money is involved, and it is well worth my hon. Friend taking a little time to study reforms, as they will bring benefit not only to the taxpayer but to the pensioner as well.

Mr. William O'Brien: It is a privilege for me, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to take part in this debate. The information contained in the reports is of immense value to hon. Members and to the general public if they are concerned about value for money as it is spent by various Departments. That is why the Committee meets and considers the numerous papers and voluminous reports that are received—work that must continue. I shall always be pleased to take part in the work of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) spoke about the low attendance in the Chamber for the debate on the reports. I agree that a better attendance would be of value to hon. Members so that they could take part in the debate and listen to it.
However, it is not just hon. Members who are absent this afternoon. The Press Gallery is empty as well. Therefore, information that could be passed on to a wider public will not be unless the points are picked up through the Official Report. I do not point a finger only at the absent hon. Members. If the press is interested in the work of the House, it should be taking note of the reports from the PAC.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred in general terms to all the seven reports listed in the motion. We all take great interest in them and there is need for some urgent action to be taken to remedy the defects. The problem was highlighted in the meetings of the PAC when we questioned witnesses.
One of the most important problems is economy of store support in the Ministry of Defence. It is rather amusing to hear and read some of the replies given to questions. I hope that some deep interest and concern will be taken by the Department of Defence and in particular by the Secretary of State because there is an urgent need for a review of what is happening to stores collected by the Department.
I wish to refer to two of the Public Accounts Committee reports, the first being the report on regional industrial incentives. The PAC observations have been noted by the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that they will be acted upon and that the Government will consider the matter in the light of their forthcoming decision on the 1984 White Paper relating to regional industrial incentives.
The PAC report welcomes the establishment of a single main aim for regional industrial policy: the reduction of regional imbalance in employment opportunities. This aim can be used to assess the effectiveness of that policy. There is high unemployment in my region. It contains many empty factories and pits are being closed. I hope that the Department will note the concern expressed by the PAC about the regional imbalance in employment opportunities. The distribution of incentives is unfair and unjust.

Unemployment in some regions is between 15 and 20 per cent., yet they receive no aid. On the other hand, regions which do not suffer from high unemployment receive substantial aid.
Reference has been made to the provision of different types of aid. We must consider whether the various schemes that have been established are providing job opportunities. The enterprise zones are causing difficulties. Certain concessions are enjoyed by factories in enterprise zones. However, factories which may be only just outside an enterprise zone enjoy no such concessions. This is unjust and it needs to be investigated.
The Government ought to consider helping local government to create job opportunities. Instead of reducing resources, I hope that the Government will provide local government with additional resources to help them to create jobs.
The five year period which, it is suggested, should elapse before there is a full review of the effectiveness of providing job opportunities is, in the opinion of the Committee, far too long. It considers that there should be a full review of the effectiveness of regional industrial incentives before the end of five years. Academic studies of regional industrial policies have revealed various impacts upon different industries. The report refers to those studies. They reveal that the creation of jobs in motor engineering, instrumental engineering and electrical engineering has produced some results. However, the Government should also consider those areas where industry has been run down. The textile and clothing industries have suffered. Thousands of jobs have also been lost in the mining and heavy engineering industries. There is an imbalance in the amount of assistance that is provided to these areas. I hope that the Government will take note of the Committee's report and will consider providing further assistance to them.
One also has to consider the loss of jobs in the support industries. When a pit, clothing factory or textile mill closes, jobs are lost in the support industries. The number of jobs lost in a factory can be doubled because of the loss of jobs in the support industries.
The report also refers to the aid that is given to the chemical industry and states that, instead of creating jobs, it has had the opposite effect. In the period referred to in the report, more than 20,000 jobs were lost after the introduction of the incentive scheme. This matter needs to be investigated. Incentives are provided to create jobs, yet we find that they are being used to reduce the number of jobs. I call upon the Department of Trade and Industry to accept the PAC's recommendations and to use the job opportunity figures as a means of assessing the effectiveness of incentives. The only way to assess whether value for money is being obtained is to compare incentives with the number of jobs created.
The Department of Health and Social Security housing benefit scheme is now in operation. The previous schemes caused concern because they were difficult to understand. People had to visit various offices to satisfy themselves that they were getting what they were entitled to. The supplementary benefit section of the DHSS made provision for rent and rate rebates for people in receipt of supplementary benefit payments. Running alongside the supplementary benefit scheme was the local authority rebate scheme which also provided rent and rates rebates for council house tenants.
It was in the financial interests of many tenants to opt out of one scheme and to take advantage only of the other. Many of them lost benefit because they were receiving the wrong type of payment. The schemes were difficult to understand and in many cases were unfair. The new scheme, which caters for all people entitled to rent and rate rebates, is to be welcomed.
In the 1970s the DHSS considered alternative schemes to overcome the unfairness and difficulties. The housing benefit scheme came into operation in April 1983. The original intention of the Department was to help claimants who had difficulty in identifying which of the previous schemes was better for them. By 1983 the emphasis had changed and the DHSS wanted to reduce the number of civil servants on its payroll.
The members of the Public Accounts Committee were concerned about the hasty introduction of a scheme whose obvious purpose was to implement cuts in public expenditure by reducing the number of civil servants on the payroll of the DHSS. The hasty introduction of the scheme created problems for claimants and for local government employees. It should be noted that only a year after the introduction of the scheme the Secretary of State for Social Services found it necessary to set up a review body.
As a member of a local authority at the time the scheme was introduced, I am well aware of the difficulties that arose because of the way in which the DHSS shoved files, names and addresses at local authorities. There was a publicity campaign about the scheme but local authorities were not familiar with the details. Because of problems in identifying relevant areas there was chaos. Substantial arrears had to be paid in many cases. Local authorities had made provision to deal with the administration of the scheme by computer. The DHSS did not have computer facilities in its supplementary benefit section to cope with housing benefits. That created problems for the local authorities. I hope that the problems will be overcome before the publication of the report that the Secretary of State called for.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
In February 1984 the Government announced an independent review of the structure and scope of the Scheme with the aim of simplifying it, ensuring that help is concentrated on those most in need and improving its administration…DHSS…had also taken steps to assist Authorities by simplifying the administrative task in a number of areas and are considering others in consultation with Local Authority Associations.
I commend that. I hope that there will be an improvement in the scheme which will help claimants in receipt of housing benefit. The sixth report of the PAC said:
DHSS issued guidelines to help Authorities identify eligible claimants over pensionable age. DHSS consider the guidelines have been very successful and that in about 70 per cent. of cases referred to DHSS by Authorities benefit was payable.
We are talking about a 70 per cent. success rate which was acceptable to the DHSS. The report continues:
However, one of the weaknesses of the Scheme has been that DHSS do not know how many cases Authorities fail to identify. DHSS have not managed to devise guidelines for non-pensioners because there is such a variety of circumstances that no rough rule-of-thumb would identify them.
I emphasise that point.
DHSS told us"—
that is the Public Accounts Committee—

that only about 200,000 people are receiving the Supplement out of an estimate of nearer half a million who might have been entitled to it.
That is a serious point. Some claimants are losing because the Department has not done its homework. Because of the haste with which the scheme was introduced, only 200,000 claimants out of 500,000 were receiving benefits. I hope that that injustice will be put right. The Committee has said that it would support an attempt to simplify the scheme and make it more equitable. I hope that the scheme will be reviewed to make sure that the present unfairness and injustices are erased.
In addition to the review body set up by the Secretary of State for Social Services, a social security review is taking place and, as hon. Members are aware, a Green Paper was published in June. That review will also consider housing benefits and the payment of housing benefits. The Green Paper also refers to simplifying the scheme and making it more equitable and to the scheme being made fairer for claimants and easier for the people who administer it.
The Minister said that housing benefit goes too far up the income scale. The Secretary of State also says that in the Green Paper. We are told that, if the proposals in the Green Paper are accepted—the proposals which have been submitted for consultation—between £500 million and £750 million will be taken from housing benefit payments. In other words, in addition to the report from the Public Accounts Committee, and in addition to the Secretary of State's review on the present system, we are told that housing benefits will be reviewed by the social services and that there could be a benefit reduction of over £500 million.
I hope that the proposals in the Green Paper to reduce housing benefit to claimants is not a means of putting right what the DHSS did wrong at the beginning. I hope that money will not be taken out of the housing benefit scheme to reduce the work load and ultimately the number of people administering the scheme. I hope that the House will not let that happen.
The work of the Public Accounts Committee will continue, and I should like to offer my congratulations to the Chairman on his work on behalf of the Committee. I hope that the new way of presenting the reports to the House will continue and that in future we shall have better support from the Press Gallery so that we can at least be sure that the work done and the contributions made by hon. Members will be made known to a wider audience.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I should like to take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). The report with which I propose to deal is the one on regional industrial incentives, and it is perhaps appropriate to begin with the recommendations of the Committee. Of course, we must bear in mind that this report was published on 11 June 1984, and a great deal has happened since then.
Many of the failures of the past have been rectified by the new scheme which the Government introduced subsequent to the publication of the report. There is a recognition of the fact that £20 billion of public money spent over the 20 years prior to 1982 created new jobs in the regions at a cost of £32,000 per job. That cannot be regarded as in any way efficient or cost-effective, and that fact was recognised by the Government in changing the


basis for the payment of regional grant from a capital base to a base of job creation. Since then we have seen the development of two schemes, one on the basis of £3,000 per job, basically for small and labour-intensive businesses, and the other on the basis of £10,000 per job for larger businesses, in which the investment which qualifies for grant is much higher.
I see from the recommendations of the report that the Government have introduced grant-aid into the service sector. It has been said many times in the House that the service sector holds the greatest promise for the greatest creation of jobs. In future the Committee could look at the effectiveness of regional industrial incentives and at the expansion of the areas for service sector grant to see how that grant could most effectively be spent. At the moment, the areas available for service sector growth are limited and could be expanded a great deal.
A third criticism which has been met since this report was published is on the use of the European regional development fund. Before the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act was enacted in the last Session, regional development grant was not linked to the European regional development fund. However, because the basis of grant is now job creation the two have been linked in a much more logical and efficient way, and that meets some of the comments made in the report.
Along with many hon. Members who represent assisted areas, I welcome the conclusions in this report which, loosely spelt out, are that, effectively, a regional development policy is necessary. In those areas where industry is declining but the community infrastructure is still in existence, it is obviously much more sensible, in cost-effective terms, to create new industries in those areas rather than develop new communities, with the all-attendant infrastructure that must go with them. Perhaps in future the Committee could look at regional development rather than consider only new towns. Such a policy could be targeted at the recovery of urban areas, and particularly those old industrial revolution cities in the north of England which now suffer badly from inner city decay.
Something else that the Committee could consider is the transport of grants, if I may use that loose phrase. Many of the new towns attracted industry because of the grants that were available. One of the great fears of hon. Members who represent new towns is that after a time, having taken advantage of those grants, companies move to greener pastures where other grants are available. Careful scrutiny of money spent like that can avoid abuses. A job may be created in a new town or in an enterprise zone, and it can then be recreated or moved to another assisted area where it will attract new grant. That perhaps is a matter which the Committee could consider carefully.
There is a plethora of agencies assisting regional development. We have partnership schemes, urban development corporations, new towns corporations, the Commission for the New. Towns, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Welsh Development Agency, assisted areas, enterprise zones, county council enterprise schemes, various enterprises agencies and a vast infrastructure of assistance.
Perhaps we should consider how to streamline the system or to reform it by targeting the available resources most efficiently on the areas of greatest need. It has been suggested that we should examine which regions need help

most and consider whether they should have regional development agencies. That would be welcomed in the north-west, where many of us would like to have such an agency dealing specifically with the assisted areas in the region. That would be cost efficient and would gather together many of the assistance schemes that I have mentioned.
Such a development would also avoid a company that wishes to expand having to travel from one assisted area to another seeking the best offer of rent and rate relief, capital grants and so on before deciding where to settle. At present, we see one assisted area bidding against another, even within the same region. Perhaps a streamlining of the system could avoid that. Many of us in the north-west are driven mad when we see on television a Welsh choir singing against the backdrop of a film of Snowdonia and the Welsh hills. We know that our development corportions, new towns and partnership schemes have nothing like that sort of advertising budget to attract people to look seriously at what we have on offer. We must try to iron out such problems, and perhaps the creation of regional development agencies is the only answer.
Mention has been made of the American system of tax incentives for regional development. Perhaps we should consider that carefully, but I emphasise that many of the companies that I have visited and those that have sought my assistance were short of capital and did not have the profits on which to claim tax allowances. They were looking to expand and to buy new machinery to create jobs. Tax incentives would not be a great help to them.
The Public Accounts Committee could also examine the administration of regional development schemes. The manuals are extremely complex and often drive away some applicants. If applicants are not to be put off by the manuals, they need the help of efficient officers in the enterprise agencies and the small firms bureau at the Department of Trade and Industry to find their way through them.
Those who administer the schemes, particularly in the north-west, are inundated with applications. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will note that in Liverpool it takes four or five months to get a decision on a regional development grant. That is a long time for a small business that has grown out of the enterprise allowance scheme, is looking to take on people and has customers waiting for orders. Six months from the date of application to the payment of grant is a long time in the development of a small business. Perhaps we should consider seriously the more efficient use of manpower in the processing of applications, particularly in Liverpool.
Time is of the essence in the development of small businesses, and I am sure that both sides of the House agree that if we are to get large-scale economic recovery the small business sector is the one from which it will come.
The Government have created a mega-department, the Department of Employment, drawing together all the Job-creating agencies. Perhaps it would be sensible to consider taking into the Department the regional development agencies and the payment of regional development grants. They are part of a job-creating policy which aims to solve the major problem that we face, and perhaps they should be taken away from the DTI. Lord Young might welcome the opportunity to draw those responsibilities into his net.
The PAC report says:


Five years is a long time to wait to start a full review of effectiveness of the revised incentives; research studies should be put in hand earlier than this".
If there is one profound conclusion of the report, that must be it. Five years is far too long to wait, and it is clear from the criticisms voiced in this debate that an early examination of the effectiveness and administration of grants is needed. I commend that view to the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said about regional policy, but I shall resist the temptation. I only hope that no one will follow his advice to transfer the payment of grant from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office to the Department of Employment. We have enough difficulties already.
I shall concentrate on the 24th report of the PAC in 1984–85, which deals with the dockyards, and couple it with the fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence in this Session. We are talking about efficiency, and I make the mild suggestion that we should reconsider how we deal with these reports.
We have seen in the House a contrast between today and yesterday. The House was operating as a debating chamber yesterday, with the cut and thrust of highly charged political debate, with a large number of hon. Members present. It was enjoyable and, on occasions, enlightening, and the media lapped it up.
Today, we are dealing with a plethora of reports and there is an absence of cut and thrust. For example, the 24th report of the PAC, which is Government dominated—rightly so, given the way that we do things—was a unanimous report. Like the report of the Select Committee on Defence, it looked searchingly at the control and operations of the dockyards, a subject on which we have also had a plethora of reports in the past 10 to 15 years. All have suggested changes. All have questioned the efficiency of the Government. But for the first time we have a Government very clearly preferring an option—a commercial option—which came to us almost out of the blue and emanated from a rather sparse study undertaken by Mr. Peter Levene who, at the time of the study, was a specialist adviser to the Secretary of State.
One of the things that we expect, if we labour in Select Committees, is to be listened to by the Departments concerned. We do not expect them to fall over backwards to agree with the strictures of either the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Defence, but we expect to be listened to.
The Public Accounts Committee had a Government majority as, of course, did the Select Committee on Defence. The latter has some very well known Left-wingers on it. The Chairman is a former Minister, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) is a former Minister, and there are several other former Ministers, including some who have been concerned with defence. That Committee overwhelmingly questioned the Government's preferred option.
But what happened? Almost before those Committees had submitted reports to the House—to be fair, a little time elapsed—the Secretary of State for Defence came along on 24 July and said, "No matter, we are going on. I am going on with the preferred option."
A management team is currently devoting valuable time ushering certain contractors through the dockyards. Some of us have the names of those firms. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell the House the names of the firms that are going through the dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport at the present time. The Government have commissioned a voluminous report by Touche Ross, showing what assets can be hawked round.
All this is against the background of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence. It means that Members have, in a way, laboured in vain. I hope that I am wrong. I am an eternal optimist. Even at this juncture I hope that the Financial Secretary, who is really, if I may say so, a pragmatic type of gentleman, will ask himself, as he certainly ought, whether we will get value for money, whether it really is efficient and whether it will work. Will the Government's preferred option of commercialisation work?
Perhaps I can explain briefly what this preferred option desires to do. The idea is to keep the capital assets of these dockyards in the public domain so that they will still have the stricture of a vote. The Ministry of Defence and the Treasury will still have their hands on that vote. The concept then is to create two companies, one for Devonport and one for Rosyth, which will be labour-only companies. We will put the labour of the dockyards into two companies for which outside contractors will bid. They will bid for the companies and they will bid for the Navy contracts, or a substantial proportion of the refit and maintenance work allocated through the Navy Board.
The Public Accounts Committee has examined this matter. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the work of the PAC. I was a member in a previous incarnation, and I am in a way sorry that I did not enjoy the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), but I served under earlier Chairmen who are not now in the House. One was Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett, who is in another place. They were excellent Chairmen, who gave valuable service to the PAC. We have asked in both these Committees whether it will work.
In the evidence given to the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), a former Defence Minister, at question 411, asked:
Would you describe this Government's preferred option as a high risk option?
Dr. Harte, of the Ministry of Defence, replied:
Those are the words I used and I would stand by them. What I was implying was, if you ranked the proposals which are now put in by the Government in order of risk, then I think it is true that the commercial management option is at the top of that list. On the other hand, if you ranked them in order of potential financial benefits, the commercial management option is already at the top.
So it is a high risk giving notionally high rewards.
What are these high rewards? What does the Public Accounts Committee say about the nature of these rewards? I quote from its report, paragraph 10:
We note that the net savings may be as little as 3 per cent. of the total Dockyard annual operation costs over a 10 year period, after allowing for the costs of implementing commercial management and the contractors' return on capital employed, although MOD stressed this was a worst case and expect that they will be higher and will increase after 10 years. Over and above those from the Interim Management Measures…the savings may be as little as 1 per cent.
There is an additional submission showing certain figures that are being submitted in answer and that is cited on page 6. There is a supplementary note by the witnesses which


gives some additional information. Nevertheless, savings are really minuscule and not backed up by any figures whatsoever.
What are we putting at risk? We are putting at risk the ability to put to sea a viable naval force in any and all circumstances that might prevail. That is a large consideration.
I know that the Public Accounts Committee does not normally undertake visitations. I do not think that the practice has altered since I was a member. Its members take the view that their responsibility is to hear witnesses, take evidence and come to their conclusions. The Select Committee on Defence does not have that circumspection. We have visited certain dockyards. Yesterday some of my colleagues and I visited Portsmouth. Here the Government have taken a different view of operations. They closed Chatham and ran down Portsmouth, but even there one can see the complexity of refitting vessels. Some of the Ministers ought to visit the dockyards. I do not suggest that they do so in the next week, because they may get a pretty rough handling if they go to Devonport or Rosyth. But if they go even to Portsmouth — and I say it with no disrespect to Portsmouth—they will see the complexity of the procedure.
We were on a County class destroyer yesterday — a rather old ship. There is no way that that type of ship could be put out to a commercial yard. It may be that the Chief of Fleet Support and Rear Admiral George or the Chief Executive, Royal Dockyards, will contradict me, because I have been rather a long time away from this as a Clydeside fitter. But let us see the sort of test that the Government have made. They have asked for a compex examination. That is what they call it. They have put out for private tender an Oberon class submarine, Euryalus, and they will then be able to make some comparisons. However, these comparisons will not be available until after 1987. The full evidence will not be available either to the House or to the Department until that time.
What has happened to the Otter? When we questioned Rear Admiral George in the Select Committee on Defence we heard the tale of the Otter's propeller. The work could not be done in a commercial yard. Rosyth is having to deal with HMS Red Pole. The estimate for that work at Rosyth was 20 weeks, so it was decided to put the work out to Richards, a commercial yard, where the work could be done in 16 weeks. The deficiencies after the commercial yard had had a go were so mind-boggling that it was decided to try to send the ship to Rosyth.
I do not excuse my trade union colleagues, but, not unnaturally, the boys and girls in the yard resented that. The Government have ideas of how to proceed with the dockyards, but they are completely untested. No other country adopts their style and practice. The United States certainly does not. The Government are putting at risk the viability of our naval force.
Perhaps the Navy and the dockyards have had too cosy a relationship over the years. Perhaps the dockyard men have been trying to do a Rolls-Royce job to ensure that, to the best of their ability, when a ship goes to sea it never breaks down. That. is erring on the right side and recognising that men's lives are at stake. That cannot be measured in terms of profit and return on capital. I know that we must press for efficiency, but that must be balanced against putting men's lives at risk and against back-up.
The Government do not even intend to examine carefully the lessons of Portsmouth. Perhaps the Select Committee on Defence is at fault because it did not examine the matter until a few days ago. The Select Committee as a whole has not yet taken a view. The Government are not awaiting the results from the Otter and Euryalus. The real culprit is the Secretary of State for Defence, although the Treasury is also involved because its aim is to reduce the number of civil servants. The main aim is to take people out of Civil Service employment and to put them in the private domain. The Government are not concerned with making the Navy more efficient.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence, but I have seen the work done by the PAC. I believe that the House and the nation should resent what is happening. The Government are paying no attention to the strictures of the senior Committee of the House—the PAC—or of the Select Committee on Defence on which they have a majority. The Committees do not take a political view. They are saying to the Government. "You have not proved your case, so, until you do, halt." We have had no response from the Government.
I suspect that the Gracious Speech will contain a commitment to introduce a Bill for the commercial management of the dockyards. Such commitments do the House and politics great harm. Government Members will troop dutifully through the Lobby in favour of that. Unfortuntely, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members will not have read the reports and they will take a decision in accordance with the balance of political votes.
Two Commitees have said that the Government have not proved their case. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for not being present to hear the whole of his speech, but he said that some of the worst evidence that he had heard was about the dockyards. In the Select Committee on Defence only one of the many witneses was a non-MoD man. I cannot say that his evidence was good. It was a rather appalling support of the Government's case.
The Financial Secretary is responsible for the effectiveness of Government spending. He should examine what is happening and look at the end product. Is he willing to have all this on his conscience because of disruption in the yards, with no tangible benefits or savings?
Perhaps the Government are planning to privatise the Navy. I would not put that past them. Unless they plan to do that, they must remember that the customer is in the public sector and the assets will remain in the public domain. The Secretary of State's doctrinaire view puts at risk the effectiveness of the Navy as a fighting force. Anyone with any sense of patriotism or public responsibility should resist that.

Mr. Michael Morris: I wish to discuss the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its effect on exports, and the perennial topic of the National Health Service which I have now studied in the Public Accounts Committee for seven years.
I pay a personal tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Committee. The PAC is one of the happiest of our Committees, and the right hon. Gentleman certainly keeps


us working hard. I do not complain about that. Of all the work that I have done in politics, the work on that Committee is by far the most worthwhile.
It is disappointing that we have to debate 51 reports this evening. We are treating the work of our most senior Committee without proper deference. We do our best to analyse the evidence. We try to suggest practical solutions. Much of the cutting edge of our work is wasted because our reports are debated so long after they are made. However, we shall try to put in a few cutting edges this evening.
It is high time that the Comptroller and Auditor General, through the National Audit Office, modernised the presentation of his work in terms of green reports. These are now put out in a succinct and very readable form and the coverage given to them by the media has grown extensively.
I am as much a traditionalist as anybody, but the format in which we produce our reports is as boring as one could possibly find, and we have to be assiduous in working out exactly which report we are dealing with. The format is identical for all the reports. They are pretty unreadable, and I would say to the Chairman and his colleagues that I hope that that will be an urgent item for discussion at our meeting on Monday next and that we shall consider how the general accounting officer in the United States operates. He produces reports that are readable with recommendations that are on the cover. If we followed his example, more than the six or eight Members attracted to the debate tonight might be attracted in future.
The second report, the 15th report and the 21st report 1984–85 relate to helping the nation's exporters. Our reports are so often critical of what is happening in Departments of State that it is quite nice to pick up a report which is thin and in which the evidence is clear. The second report states in recommendation No. 15(1) on page vii:
We consider that the C and AG's findings provide welcome assurance that the staffing of the Diplomatic Service has been, and is, scrutinised regularly and carefully.
We do not say that lightly, and we long for the day when we can say the same about the National Health Service or indeed about any other Department of State. It is to the credit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that it has accepted the strictures that the Committee made of it some years ago and that it got its act together. I pay tribute to the work that it has done.
The 15th report deals with the management of the overseas estate. Considerable progress has been made with it and we believe that further progress will come. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 14(v) of the 15th report's recommendations, which states:
We regret the significantly reduced resources available to FCO for rationalisation and 'spend to save' proposals with a high rate of return. We think it unfortunate that opportunities for savings are being frustrated by an initial shortage of funds.
It is clear from that that the FCO has a much better grip on things than it has had for a long time. I think that the Treasury might relax its control a little in this area. As one who specialises in matters concerning south-east Asia, I am conscious that, had we had more men on the ground and progressed further the concept of a territorial commercial man, we should not have got into such a mess with the Thai bus contract, with every chance of losing it.
The 21st report on the ECGD deals with our exporters and is a most important and timely report. As hon. Members will know, the Minister of State has received recommendations for a review of ECGD. He did not accept all the recommendations that were put to him about the nature of the board, but he said that there were now full-time members on the board and that the result will be a swifter and more responsive service to exporters and, as he put it, more stimulating work for the staff.
It is a perennial worry for anyone at the Treasury to discover that the ECGD is making a substantial loss. My hon. Friend the Minister needs no reminding of that, but I hope that when the Treasury considers the report and the evidence of Mr. Gill and others it will recognise that it is perfectly right, proper and practical that commercial insurance risks should be run at a profit and certainly on nothing worse than a no-profit-no-loss basis but that there are times, a substantial number in today's world, when there is, as it were, political risk. In this context, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 46(viii) of the summary of main conclusions, which reads:
Guarantee facilities within ECGD's Trading Accounts which incur substantial losses, but which are necessary in the national interest, should be accounted for as public expenditure.
The details in paragraph 25 show that in that category of trade the loss was £68·2 million. In the other category, shown in paragraph 29, the loss was £87·7 million. We know that ATP, aid and trade provision, is still being reviewed three months after the initial announcement of its role. I put it to the Government that the £150 million spent on trading risks of a political nature is vital to the nation's exporters, and the House will do a great disservice to the nation if the availability of that cover is removed.
Having praised the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I come to my bête noir, the National Health Service. Here I must declare a number of interests in that I advise two pharmaceutical companies and am married to a full-time general practitioner. In this context, I wish to dip into a number of reports—Nos. 12, 16, 28 and 29 of 1983–84 and Nos. 17, 22 and 23 of 1984–85. I shall say no more than this for the pharmaceutical industry. Tackling the approximately 10 per cent. of NHS costs accounted for by the national drugs bill is fine and dandy, but it is no use ignoring the other 90 per cent., throwing one's hands up in despair and saying that because we do not know how to get at those costs we cannot do anything about them.
In relation to the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, I draw attention to just two issues. First, the parallel imports situation is covered in the 29th report of 1983–84. Paragraph 31(vii) of the recommendations states:
The suggestion that the NHS has not been overcharged in respect of parallel imports of drugs in no way justifies chemists making large unintended profits at the taxpayer's expense, and DHSS should deal urgently with the problem on this basis.
That was printed on 9 July 1984, but to the best of my knowledge action taken on it has been almost nil. I did some telephoning on this yesterday and to my certain knowledge there are still parallel imports at 30 per cent. below the list price cost, the difference being pocketed by the large chemists doing the importing.
The 23rd report of 1984–85 makes a further important point about the PPRS stressing the importance of the Department receiving the main review body report for Government contracts before carrying out its negotiations with the industry. The DHSS previously did its own negotiation but, because of the other main body of


Government review contracts, we have the farcical situation that a non-pharmaceutical industry can get a better rate of return than someone under the PPRS.
The 28th report is about the procurement of NHS savings. The not insignificant sum of £60 million is available. However, we sadly report—these are pretty damning words—in 32(i) of the recommendations:
The slow progress in securing available economies in the cost of NHS supplies represents a significant missed opportunity. It is lamentable that after nearly 30 years of effort by the NHS we are virtually starting from the beginning.
That sentence fills us with horror and it ought to fill every senior official in the DHSS, Ministers and shadow Ministers with absolute horror. It is not good enough to allow that situation to continue, and I hope that the Treasury will put pressure on the Department to sort this out.
It gives me some pride to state that only the Oxford region has virtually eliminated small stores. It is not often that, coming from Northampton, I praise the Oxford regional health authority but it has got something right. The DHSS informed the Committee that the target for centrally co-ordinated supplies was 80 per cent. to be achieved in 1984–85. I would love to know whether we got anywhere near 80 per cent. The £60 million is available without a great loss of sweat in the supplies area. If Sainsbury, Tesco or any other company were involved, it would soon be digging into that £60 million.
The 22nd report concerns energy conservation. First, I quote a few words of praise:
We recognise the achievement made by the health service over the last ten years in securing energy savings totalling £379 million".
The Committee then goes on to say:
But we have grave doubts as to whether the potential for further savings of £1,335 million in the next fifteen years will be realised".
"Grave doubts" is an understatement because the Department set up a scheme in 1977 with a great fanfare but which totally collapsed by 1981. We say it faltered. It is extraordinary that when we look, ask, question and probe we find that there is not one piece of guidance given by that Department to its regions for the whole of the period from 1979 to 1984. We forget too easily that 1979 was the middle of an oil crisis, yet the DHSS, despite that crisis, ignored the question of energy saving. In paragraph 7 we state that, in the view of the DHSS, it had delegated that responsibility to the districts and regions, but it is not adequate to delegate in such circumstances, given the Department's record.
I should like to know how near we came to achieving savings of £100 million, which was the Department's own target for 1984–85. My guess is that we had a miserable performance—I doubt whether we got halfway to it—so that leaves at least another £50 million to £100 million.
The report on the general dental services—the 17th—does not show any massive savings. It is right to place on record the Committee's view that, since 1979, dental health in Great Britain has continued to improve and should improve further. The vast majority of our dentists do a first class job for the nation in preventive dentistry. The Department, however, should respond to our recommendation that regulation 22 procedures—a spot check—should be done on those dentists who appear to be either over-providing or over-charging. A little activation of that would go a long way to solving the problems.
The 12th report makes very sorry reading. It is distressing that any Department of State can estimate cost savings from reorganisation of £8·6 million which turn out to be £54 million. That is an incredible difference, and the Committee is not even sure whether £54 million was an accurate figure. We were told that there were 4,000 posts to be saved. We do not know whether they were saved. All we know is that there were 3,000 premature retirements at fairly princely sums of money. Paragraph 29 of the report says:
We must express our misgivings about the re-employment in the NHS of officers who have had the benefit of premature retirement terms. We welcome the review being undertaken by the Department and, whilst we can appreciate that re-employment could be an assistance to management, we consider that it should be very strictly controlled by the DHSS themselves.
That warning paragraph is just as relevant today, and I hope that it is brought to the attention of the authorities.
The 16th report for 1983–84 concerns manpower control. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) will have drawn attention to it. Recommendation 52(i) says:
Progress by the health departments and health authorities in bringing NHS manpower under control has been quite inadequate".
That is an understatement. We were aiming for savings of £30 million from the reorganisation, but we are not sure whether we have achieved more than £10 million so far. We know that we have building defects to the tune of at least £30 million and that in terms of claims against contractors and professionals we have garnered the princely sum of £400,000 as at the date of our report, which was not so long ago.
I have tried to highlight the fact that there are several areas in the NHS, which is under a lot of pressure, where substantial savings can be made. I have to attend a meeting of my district health authority next Friday. It wants to close three wards, but when I look through its plans I find that they show every sign of the evidence that I have found in the PAC's reports — inadequate planning and inadequate tackling of what is no more than simple professional good management. The Treasury wants to save money. It is high time that it worked through some of our NHS reports because tens of millions of pounds are lying wasted. That is to the detriment of the whole nation.I hope that, if nothing else, I have stimulated my hon. Friend into reading those reports on the NHS.

Mr. Roger King: I shall confine myself to the 13th report of the PAC concerning the evasion and enforcement of vehicle excise duty. The Committee underlined the fact that circumstances up to 1982–83 were far from satisfactory. The report notes that between £135 million and £174 million of revenue is lost by people not carrying out their duty to license their road. vehicles. It identifies the fact that, out of some 28 million vehicles that are in use or have been built in this country, 20 million are licensed, but 8 million are unaccounted for. The report states that most of the unaccounted for vehicles are laid up, awaiting sale or are not licensed but are being used regularly. This emphasises the unacceptability of the present situation.
The police make an effort to apprehend licence dodgers, but we have seen recently how difficult it is for the police to do that job adequately. We learnt a bitter


lesson in Handsworth, where I believe the riot was started by a spot check on a vehicle that was not displaying a tax disc. Conversations that I have had with police officers suggest that they are hesitant about dealing with tax dodging within the inner city areas, for fear of starting something much more substantial in the form of civil disobedience. If the police are not prepared to do that, there are grounds for having a commissioned debt collecting agency, as there is a large amount of money for a private enterprise agency to collect on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
There was no shortage of ideas about how to combat the present situation, and there are two or three basic alternatives. One idea was to pass the tax on to the user in petrol prices, to make sure that everybody who used a car paid the equivalent of the vehicle excise duty. That would mean an increase of 31p per gallon on the price of petrol. The Government ruled that out because it would disadvantage many people in rural areas who do much higher mileage in daily commuting to schools, shops and so on.
Another alternative was to tax every vehicle, irrespective of whether it was used or laid up. That would be a much more simplified form of vehicle excise duty, but it was dismissed because it would be unfair on those who collect cars as a hobby, run museums or rarely use vehicles on the public highway. Surely a combination of alternatives can be arrived at to come up with an acceptable policy.
I am disappointed in the report because no active suggestion is made to help the Secretary of State for Transport develop an alternative strategy. Non-payment of the vehicle excise duty is not a declining problem, but is gradually increasing, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to enforce licensing in our inner city areas. It seems to me that we could evolve a system that would feature all the suggestions that have been made. It makes sense to have some form of road pricing by passing some of the vehicle excise duty cost on to a gallon of petrol. A petrol increase of 15p per gallon is small compared with how much petrol has gone up in the past two years—approximately 40p to 50p. That would be paid by everybody who uses a motor vehicle.
It is equally possible to have a standing charge for a car, much as we have a standing charge for electricity, gas and telephone. A standing charge for a vehicle would not be unreasonable.
There could be a standing charge of not more than £2 a month— about £20 a year— for the opportunity of having a vehicle to use on the highway. Were one to apply for a full vehicle excise licence, that would be at a cost of about £40 or £50 a year, bearing in mind the extra cost of petrol and the standing charge that would be paid.

Mr Penhaligon: Should that sum be paid by the British Leyland factory in Birmingham on the cars that it has in store?

Mr. King: Of course not, just as British Leyland would not pay many other taxes when it produces a vehicle. This charge would be levied on the car only when it was handed over to the first keeper, and whether the car was laid up or put into a museum that person would still pay the standing charge.
For a museum or a collector, it would be possible to exempt any car built before 1960. Oddly enough, if some of the cost of everyday usage were passed on through a surcharge on the price of petrol, in many areas that could make all the difference between no public transport and viable public transport. As motoring costs would clearly increase in some cases, there would be an encouragement for the user to switch to some extent to public transport.
The report also draws attention to the identification of the relationship between the user of a vehicle and the keeper. All too often when people are apprehended for driving a vehicle without a vehicle excise licence it is discovered, after numerous investigations and inquiries, that the keeper claims that he knew nothing about the use of the vehicle on that particular day—that it had been taken without his permission, laid up, or its use had not been authorised. We must make a clear distinction between the user and the keeper.
A user is a person who can commit an offence for parking, speeding and so on. He would be liable for any fine or penalty. However, the keeper must be responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle and the presentation of a vehicle excise duty licence. Whoever the user may be, if a vehicle does not have such a licence, the keeper must be liable. If that point were made clear, it would cut out a lot of the time-wasting involved in establishing who is responsible for paying the vehicle excise duty. If there were a standing charge and a surcharge on the price of petrol, everyone would be contributing to vehicle excise duty, even though some of the dodgers might not pay the full amount of duty involved.
As the report also says, the fines that are levied are quite derisory. The average fine is about £33, yet the maximum is about £425. Very few people ever pay the maximum fine. As an example to others, we should ensure that it does not pay to fail to license one's car. There ought to be a recommendation that if a car is not licensed and the person is caught, that person should have to pay a great deal more than the cost of licensing the vehicle in the first place.
In the absence of punitive measures, people will continue to take the risk. As the report indicates, in many parts of the country it is common sense to take a chance and to drive a vehicle without a current vehicle excise disc on the windscreen. Our attention ought to be devoted to introducing a system to ensure that all road users pay their fair share of the cost of running a car and of providing the infrastructure that is necessary.

Mr. Terry Davis: A notable feature of this debate has been the number of hon. Members who have taken part who are not members of the Public Accounts Committee. I have sat through several PAC debates and read the Official Report of others. But what struck me this evening was that, although there has been the traditional self-criticism of poor attendance in the Chamber, many non-members of the Public Accounts Committee have taken part in the debate. I shall refer to some of their speeches in my contribution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) paid tribute to the work of his colleagues and noted that the Public Accounts Committee is one of the most demanding Committees of the House. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Committee members, including those who have not been able to


contribute to the debate tonight but who contributed, in many cases with great distinction, to the deliberations of the Committee.
I join other right hon. and hon. Members who have congratulated and complimented my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. There is a certain ritual about thanks, but I have noticed tonight the warmth of the congratulations from Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who are all members of the PAC, have commented on the distinctive role of Chairman performed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I would add to our appreciation of his work as Chairman that those of us who have served on the PAC for a few months recognise that, although an ordinary member of the Committee does a great deal of work, the amount of work undertaken by the Chairman is much greater.
We wish to express our appreciation of my right hon. Friend's lucid presentation of the reports this evening. It was clear from his contribution that he has given thought not only to the work done by the Committee but to the Committee's responsibilities, the way in which his duties should be discharged in future and the evolution of the work of one of the oldest and most historic Committees of the House. We shall study with care his remarks about the delicate relationship between Ministers and civil servants and how that is affected by the PAC.
I join hon. Members in expressing appreciation for the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I associate myself especially with the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, South. Similar sentiments have been expressed before on both sides of the House. Sometimes the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff must think that hon. Members pay only lip service to the importance of their work and the work of the PAC.
I also agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, South about the delay in debating the reports. The previous debate on the PAC reports took place more than 18 months ago in March 1984. There was a special debate more recently on the report on premature retirement in the National Health Service. I encourage such special debates. However, during our previous debate, hon. Members criticised the delay in debating the reports. On that occasion the delay was nearly two years, although it had been increased by the intervening general election. On this occasion we have had a gap of more than 18 months and we are debating the reports at the fag end of a Session.
Many hon. Members regret that we do not debate PAC reports more frequently so that they are still fresh and some contribution can be made to the decisions which must be taken by Ministers. In the previous debate, the Financial Secretary, who is to reply to this debate, promised to bring this point to the attention of the Leader of the House. I am sure that he did as he promised, but there has been no result. Hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to press the Financial Secretary again this evening, because the impression given is that the Government do not care enough about the PAC reports. I mean that they do not care enough to have them debated more frequently and more promptly after the reports are published, and to have subsequent debates. The Government's manifesto at the general election stated:

We are determined that our public services should provide the best possible value both for people they seek to help and for the taxpayer who pays the bill.
One way to get value for money would be to debate the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, as we have seen tonight.
There has been a new development. In opening the debate, the Chairman of the PAC identified seven reports which he regarded as especially significant. Those reports were also identified, for the benefit of the House, on the Order Paper. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that almost every report merits its own debate and that we need more debates on individual subjects, as happened with the report on premature retirement in the NHS. That was another point advocated 18 months ago.
I also support the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) — I had intended to make it myself—that there is a need for other Ministers to reply to such debates. I yield to no one—at least to no one in the Opposition— in my regard for the abilities of the Financial Secretary, but it is asking too much of him to reply to the debate with the expertise, knowledge and experience of Ministers from Departments whose activities are the subject of PAC reports. It would benefit the House, the Government and the governing of the country if departmental Ministers could take part in such debates, as happened during the debate on premature retirement in the NHS and as happened, unusually, during proceedings on the Finance Bill.
This year, the Finance Bill Standing Committee debated vehicle excise duty, and the Government brought to that Committee the Under-Secretary' of State for Transport. I make no comment about the views that were expressed or the policy that was enunciated by the Minister. The point is that we had the opportunity to debate with the Minister the taxation aspects of his Department's activities. That was right and proper, and it led to me and my hon. Friends thinking seriously about that aspect of that tax. On behalf of the Opposition, I press the Financial Secretary to consider seriously my request for more such departmental debates on the Floor of the House.
When he replies, I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us what has happened with regard to the points put to him 18 months ago. After all, he has had plenty of time to think about them. I especially wish to ask him about a point made by the hon. Member for Scarborough, who drew attention to the need for much greater emphasis to be placed on the work of internal audit departments. It is not enough to leave such matters to the PAC. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that all Governments should pay more attention to the work of internal audit departments. Much more could be done internally. Indeed, one role of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be to ask why the internal audit departments have not reported on some of the matters which are the subject of PAC reports.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne noted that the PAC is concerned not with Government policy but with the implications and the financial aspects of their decisions. He referred especially to vehicle excise duty. Our debate on the Finance Act 1985 showed that the Government have given little, if any, thought to the relationship between different classes of vehicles in regard to vehicle excise duty. However, the report sets out the measures that should be taken to combat


the evasion of vehicle excise duty. During our debates in Standing Committee—I make no apology for referring to them, because we had an extensive debate on the subject —the Minister of State estimated that the revenue from vehicle excise duty is about £2·5 billion a year. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport told us that, based on a study conducted a year ago, the Government consider that the rate of evasion is 4 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) declared his interest. The driver and vehicle licensing centre is in his constituency. The hon. Member for Truro declared a slightly different interest. He said that his constituents have an interest in the present structure of taxation because, if the tax on petrol was increased to replace vehicle excise duty, there would be a redistribution of tax from urban to rural areas. That is a valid point. I accept the logic of what he said—that people living in rural areas tend to drive longer distances than people who live in urban areas.
There would be another aspect of redistribution. I am not arguing for that policy; I am drawing attention to another aspect of redistribution which would arise if the tax on petrol increased and the vehicle excise duty were reduced— a redistribution between different classes in our society. There would be a redistribution of tax from smaller to bigger cars. Many people think that that would be desirable. It would also redistribute tax from people who cover small mileages to those who cover high mileages, not because of the areas where they live, but because of their lifestyle.
I note with interest that the Liberal party is opposed to an increase in the tax on petrol. I shall record that for the future because, as the Financial Secretary will remember, when the Opposition pressed him on that point during our debates on the Finance Bill in Committee of the House, not one Liberal Member voted against the increase.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East referred to last December's report about evasion. I think he made a slip of the tongue because he said that the report showed that there had been a reduction in evasion, and that the problem was contained or even resolved. That is to misread the report. The estimates have been reduced, not the amount of evasion. The surveys carried out in June 1984 show that the previous estimates may have been wrong. I say "may have been wrong", because the figure may still be an underestimate. The estimate was based on the number of vehicles observed in three days in the summer of 1984. However, the report notes that some vehicle owners evade duty for at least part of the year. The estimates, therefore, must take account of that. The report also notes that at least twice the number of unlicensed vehicles may be in use than were estimated on the basis of the survey. The scale of the evasion, therefore, may be much nearer the 10 per cent. mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne than the 4 per cent. which is tentatively suggested in the December report.
If the figure is only 4 per cent., the loss to the Inland Revenue is about £100 million a year. The figure will be slightly higher than that because in the interim the Government have increased the rate of vehicle excise duty. That does not take into account the effect of an increase in the vehicle excise duty on the amount of evasion. I am not suggesting that we should study the subject ad

infinitum, but if there is a relationship between the level of tax and the amount of evasion, the evasion will have increased because of the increase in tax in excess of the rate of inflation. We can, therefore, expect the amount to be significant. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne hinted that the PAC would go further into the subject. If evasion is about 10 per cent., lost revenue is about £250 million.
The point is not simply to quantify the amount of lost revenue, but to ask what is to be done about it. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Uxbridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East argued that greater efforts should be made to counter evasion. I was particularly struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we should consider what other countries do to ensure less evasion. I am sure that other hon. Members from the west midlands will support his point, that a change in the system of vehicle registration and licensing may reduce evasion and have a beneficial effect on British motor manufacturers.
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary some questions about the reports. Why does the Department of Transport not deal with all offence reports? It must be borne in mind that the statistics deal only with known offences and vehicles which have already been spotted as being on the road without vehicle excise duty having been paid. Why has the Department set itself a target of only 60 per cent. of reported offences in London and 80 per cent. elsewhere? Why is it satisfied with those proportions? Why is there a difference between London and elsewhere? Why should 40 per cent. of offenders in London escape action and only 20 per cent. elsewhere? Will the Financial Secretary and the Department of Transport consider employing more people, as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, to deal with evasion? The report shows that it would be productive and the revenue to be derived from it would greatly exceed the cost of employing 400 or 500 more people. Therefore, the Financial Secretary should consider the idea.
The hon. Member for Northfield also referred to police reluctance to deal with evasion. He referred specifically to Handsworth and the inner cities, but the problem is not restricted to those areas. I am sure that hon. Members will have seen, as I have, vehicles for which the vehicle excise duty has not been paid. I have never forgotten walking around a car park outside a sports centre in leafy Berkshire and being amazed at the number of cars there that morning for which vehicle excise duty had not been paid for long periods. It was not just that the owner had forgotten to license the car for a month; it was for long periods. The problem is not, therefore, restricted to the inner cities.
Will the Financial Secretary tell the House what has happened in the 18 months since the report was published? He told us that the average penalty had increased to £44, but the present maximum penalty is £500, not £425, because it is five times the rate of vehicle excise duty. The Government's increase in vehicle excise duty has increased the maximum penalty. If the average penalty is only £44, it is low. Does the Financial Secretary find £44 an acceptable figure? Does he want it increased? If so, what are the Government doing to persuade magistrates to view the offence with greater severity? As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked, what reply has been received from the Magistrates' Association? It is more


than a year since the Government wrote to it, and the public and the House are entitled to know what is happening and what magistrates intend to do about it.
The report on the sale of Government shareholdings in publicly owned companies deals with the procedure for selling the holdings, which is a matter of intense political debate. I note from the report that in the sale of Associated British Ports Holdings the public lost £5 million because the value of the shares immediately rose by 23 per cent. The price has now quadrupled. What will happen when all the assets are sold off? That question concerns not the PAC, but the Treasury Select Committee, and it causes my hon. Friends and me some anxiety. I am sure that we shall return to that question in our debates during the year.
Although several hon. Members have constituency interests in vehicle excise duty, the hon. Member for Horsham could not be accused of speaking from a constituency point of view when he referred to regional industrial incentives. He argued that we needed a package of measures, not simply grants. I agree with his general point, especially his idea of a more discriminatory policy, possibly tailored according to region and city. However, I would probably disagree with him about what those measures should be. I also disagree with him about his interpretation of the unemployment figures for the different regions. He read out percentages, and argued that there was little to show for regional industrial incentives over the years. That argument can be met by referring to the work of the PAC. When discussing the effect of regional industrial incentives, one can ask what the figures would have been without those incentives.
The argument is similar to the argument in favour of a Public Accounts Committee. Several hon. Members have said that there is little corruption and fraud in public administration. Our record is better than that of many other countries, but that does not mean that we should not have a PAC whose prime responsibility is to ensure that money is properly spent and not misappropriated. The Committee's role ensures a high standard of public administration. We would not abolish the PAC simply because there was little evidence of fraud and corruption in public life. The Committee has a deterrent effect. Similar arguments apply to regional industrial incentives. Without them, we would probably have lost more jobs in the regions.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) say that each new job was estimated to cost £32,000. He said that that was a large amount, and I agree. However, that was only one estimate. He will have noted in the report that the estimates for the number of jobs created varied a great deal. Over a 21-year period, from 1960 to 1981, estimates varied from 350,000 to 630,000 additional jobs. That is a great variation, and there are many estimates. I suspect that the academics who have been studying regional industrial incentives, rather like the economists, never agree.
It is unfortunate that there is only one estimate for the cost per job. If all the academics had produced estimates, we would, no doubt, have had a wide variation. I am not impressed with the figures because no one knows the true effect of the incentives. As the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said, jobs can be double counted—for example, through transfers of jobs. A new job may be created and counted, but then move because of a grant in another area and be counted again.
The Government's new scheme has the clear objective that the incentives are to reduce regional disparities in unemployment. There is a weakness in that target. It would be easy to reduce regional disparities by having 100 per cent. unemployment in every region. They would all be equal then because there would be a levelling down. I suspect that that would be regarded as a success in some quarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was on the right lines when he spoke with great feeling, based on his constituency experience, of the need for greater efforts to reduce the imbalance in job opportunities. I link that with the comment of the Comptroller and Auditor General about the absence of targets for the Government's regional policy.
There is some discussion in the report about whether the job figures should be gross or net. The real target should be total employment in the regions, and job opportunities should include existing jobs. The targets should take account of jobs saved and indirect jobs created by incentives. The figures should be shown not by an estimate using a standard multiplier effect, but by recording, planning and targeting total employment in a region or city.
The report on stores control in the Ministry of Defence was highlighted by the hon. Members for Scarborough, for Truro and for Uxbridge. I have an interest to declare. Indeed, I always seem to have an interest to declare in our debates on the PAC reports. Perhaps it is because there are so many of them with which to deal at one sitting. I spent some years working in the supply area of the engineering industry. Not only was I responsible for obtaining supplies, but I became a supplier to the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, I have rather more sympathy than other hon. Members with the people handling that responsibility in the Ministry of Defence. I am not as impressed as some hon. Members by the fact that the Ministry of Defence did not regard it as necessary to replace everything that had been burnt at Donnington. I suspect that, in some cases, it could not replace everything. That was the purpose of the all-time buy in the first place—if it did not put those items into store, it could not obtain them again.
The original decision to buy may not have been wrong; perhaps subsequent events led to overstocking. We can be too trenchant in our criticisms with the benefit of hindsight. However, I accept that substantial savings could be made in that aspect of the activities of the Ministry of Defence. I agree with the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Nellist) on 30 April, who, when examining one of the witnesses, referred to the complacency of the permanent undersecretary. The replies recorded in the minutes show a degree of complacency about the efficiency of stores control.
I was disturbed to learn from the hon. Member for Scarborough that Mr. Levene's report was so confidential that it was not shown to the PAC. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about that. I did not gain the impression from the report that that had happened. The information may be buried somewhere in the back-up papers.

Sir Michael Shaw: I am not sure whether the relevant letter is among the mass of papers, but it was dated 13 March.

Mr. Davis: I shall again look through this pile of papers for that crucial letter. It is of great concern that the PAC could not see a report produced for the Minister.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, reviews are under way. There are two reviews and the Treasury has agreed that the results will be notified to Parliament. I hope that we will have not only the results but the whole report, so that we can judge the efficiency or otherwise of stores control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton spoke at length about the reports on the housing benefit scheme and social security. He expressed the Opposition's view perfectly. Constituency cases show that the introduction of the housing benefit scheme was chaotic. However, it is easy to forget that there were problems previously and that people lost benefit because they were not clearly advised whether to apply for a rebate or for supplementary benefit. Nevertheless, the introduction of the new scheme caused very many problems. Indeed, it could be argued that it caused more problems than it solved.
It is clear from the report that the scheme did not lead to fewer staff being employed, yet I thought that that was the cardinal objective of the Government. They are actually employing more staff to handle these benefits than hitherto. Therefore, on that narrow measure, the scheme has been a failure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne summed it up when he said that, having thoroughly investigated the matter as Chairman of the Committee, he concluded that the housing benefit scheme was not properly prepared and not properly introduced. We shall return to that subject during the next year when we debate the social security review.
We will also pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the report on the arrangements for delivery of social security benefits. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the cost of paying pensions and other benefits by order books cashed weekly at post offices. He drew attention to the higher cost of that system compared with the cost of payment into a bank account. If someone wishes to have a pension or other benefit paid into a bank account, he should be able to do so.
My hon. Friends and I would oppose any compulsion or financial penalty being imposed on people who want to receive their benefits weekly in the traditional manner across the post office counter. If the Government were to pursue the suggestion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge of a £10 incentive or bonus payment to people who agree to switch to monthly payments through a bank account, we should face the problem of people wishing to change back because of their circumstances changing.
Indeed, that difficulty has already occurred with the monthly payment of child benefit. Hon. Members on both sides will have had that difficulty drawn to their attention by constituents. The overwhelming point is that people should have the right to choose how they are paid benefit, and on that I hope we can achieve cross-party agreement.

Mr. Shersby: I, too, would oppose any penalty being imposed on people who did not wish to make the change, and I agree that people should have the freedom to choose. I was simply suggesting that further publicity should be given to the advantages of switching by those people who felt able, in the national interest, to make the switch.

Mr. Davis: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that he wished there were more advertisements on television about that than about some other things that are advertised. I, too, wish to encourage people to change, because to do so is in the interest of the taxpayer and, therefore, of us all, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, resources are released for use in other ways. However, I wish to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I would oppose the imposition of any penalty on people—who, in practice, would be the poorer people in society—who could not afford to switch to monthly payments.
The report on the monitoring and control of the nationalised industries is one of the more important documents to come from the Public Accounts Committee this year. I will not express detailed views about that tonight because I suspect that we shall debate it at length after the Queen's Speech. After all, there has been much-trailed legislation about arrangements for the nationalised industries, and we look forward to those debates.
I reiterate what I said at the outset about the need for more frequent debates with various Ministers taking part. The hon. Member for Northampton, South referred to several reports concerning various aspects of the National Health Service. The detailed points that he made deserve a reply from the Minister for Health. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the efficiency of supplies in the NHS — a matter which has been the subject of previous PAC reports. I recall the Committee discussing it five years ago, and it is regretted by hon. Members in all parts of the House that there should still be that apparent waste of resources. As I said, the subject should be discussed with the Minister for Health present rather than our simply having the Financial Secretary dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South also referred to the report on dental services in the NHS. Indeed, he was the only hon. Member to refer to that document. That report from the PAC showed that there might be some abuse of the present system of payments by a minority —a small minority, no doubt—of dentists by way of dishonest claims for treatment that has not been given or justified claims for treatment that need not have been given. As the report points out, we need to change the emphasis of the dental service from treatment to prevention. Two other important points should be made in the same context—the effect of the increased charges on the number of people seeking treatment, and the need to improve the dental health of people with low incomes.
The PAC has pointed to the great disparity in dental health between the people of Scotland and the rest of Britain. That is not a new point. It was made in the Black report a few years ago. There is a tremendous disparity between the health of people in social classes one to three and classes four and five. We should debate those issues in a broader context with the Minister for Health present.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred to another report which was not listed for special attention in this debate, the report on the control of dockyard operations and manpower—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West put it, the commercialisation of operations in the dockyards.
The PAC criticised the calculation of the savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West went further because he was able to bring to the House his experience on the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friend's speech was particularly interesting because he


could put both reports together. We need a combination approach. We need reports from departmental committees on aspects of policy decisions together with reports from the PAC on the financial aspects.
Both reports in this case looked at the same Government decision but from different angles. We need to debate that in a special way. I am not suggesting that the Financial Secretary should not take part in such debates. If I were, I should be excluding myself from them. I am delighted to have him take part in them, but he should have alongside him, also taking part, the Minister with departmental responsibility, in the same way as this year we debated vehicle excise duty as part of our consideration of the Finance Bill. I hope that in future years, not only in debating the Finance Bill but in discussing PAC reports, the same attitude will be taken. After all, hon. Members on both sides are united in agreeing that we need more frequent debates on these reports.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I start by unreservedly paying tribute to the valuable work done by this senior Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, and by that I mean all past, practising and potential members of it. I join those hon. Members who have paid special compliments to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). There is no doubt among all of us who have to digest and participate not only in this debate but in all the work of the Committee about the outstanding work that he does for and on behalf of the House, which means the Government and the country as well, as Chairman of the Committee.
I also add to the compliments to the National Audit Office, which provides much expert and well-informed advice. Its work is close to the interests of the Treasury and —as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, as a former Financial Secretary, will know—it provides value for money. It is especially valuable in that the Committee's work is independent, objective and external to the the normal Treasury-spending Department relationship. That is an important point.
I also welcome the new form for this debate, which enables the Committee to concentrate our minds on a realistic section of its reports. In particular, I note the two points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) — if he does not stop being complimentary about me, he will create even more difficulties for me—about the delay between debates. For those of us who have to digest 51 reports it is not easy to have the debates in quick succession, but I shall draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the other relevant people who decide on our debates. I shall also draw their attention to the point made by the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and for Hodge Hill about Ministers. I know that changing anything in our constitutional system creates a huge debate, but I cannot pretend not to be personally interested, because of the particular difficulties of trying to respond on a wide range of subjects.
Unfortunately, despite the new system that we are introducing today, I was not relieved of the need to remind myself of what is in all the reports to which I have presented replies. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) about the paper mountain that the PAC faces under the diligent

leadership of its Chairman. However, I accept that responsibility, in the interests of preserving hon. Members' undoubted right to raise matters on any report on the agenda. I shall do my best to respond to most of the points that have been made.
For the most part, we are dealing not with recriminations about the past, but with trying to do things better in the future. It is hardly to be expected that any organisation, with the auditor's invaluable hindsight—like the hon. Member for Hodge Hill I speak as an exauditor—will have performed perfectly in every respect, although the Comptroller and Auditor General's latest report on the Her Majesty's Stationery Office trading fund comes about as close as it is possible to that. It will usually be possible to point to mistakes and to learn from experience. The PAC's comments and conclusions contribute to that and even where, rarely, the Government do not entirely agree with the conclusions, I assure the House that PAC reports are always read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested by Departments for the future conduct of their business, and are certainly appreciated enormously by the Treasury.
If I am not able to respond to any of the detailed points that have been made, I shall make sure that the relevant Department responds specifically to hon. Members.
The debate on the 13th report on vehicle excise duty seems to have taken much of the attention of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the hon. Members for Truro, for Hodge Hill and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—who has a particular constituency interest—legitimately spent a considerable time on this extremely difficult subject. I shall make one or two brief observations and then respond specifically to the staffing point that was raised not only by the hon. Member for Swansea, East but by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill in his winding-up speech.
Possible alternative forms of taxation have been examined, but none has been found to be preferable to the form that we have, even with its acknowledged disadvantage. I put that clearly on record. As an example, one would have to add 38p a gallon to the price of petrol if we changed to that method instead of keeping the vehicle excise duty. Efforts to improve enforcement have therefore been made, and considerable success has been achieved. A useful reform of Scottish law, recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, is included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which is expected to receive Royal Assent later this month. This will have an impact in this area, and hon. Members ill be happy to welcome it.

Mr. Anderson: The key point, however, is that no Government survey of the possible replacement of vehicle excise duty is taking place. To that extent, anxieties cannot be allayed.

Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must constantly review and consider every form of tax. I said quite specifically everything that I could possibly say about this matter, and I hope that it was helpful. However, the Scottish aspect is important. The Government have drawn the Committee's views about the level of fines to the attention of the Magistrates Association and, in Scotland, to the attention of the


District Courts Assocation, the Sheriffs Assocation and the Association of Sheriff Principals and they hope that adequate notice will be taken of those views. The potential penalty is more than adequate. The problem is the average level of the fines applies by the courts. There is a degree of legitimate separation of powers within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to staffing. In evidence to the PAC, in February 1984, a permanent secretary at the Department of Transport said that an extra 400 to 500 staff might produce the maximum net revenue from enforcement. Improved enforcement performance has caused this figure to be revised downwards to 300 at present, 908 Department of Transport staff are allocated to vehicle excise duty enforcement work, while 25 extra staff are to be deployed to deal with the extra cases in Scotland because of the expected change in Scottish law. Thus, reliance is being placed largely upon improvements in efficiency within the existing staff numbers to reduce evasion, because of the need to order priorities within the Department and because of the constraints upon public service running costs.

Mr. Anderson: Surely a case could be made that because of the downward revision 300 extra staff would be the most cost-effective way of bringing in these receipts. The Minister must look seriously at this point and not reject it out of hand.

Mr. Moore: This matter is being seriously considered. It relates to the Government's overall attitude towards running costs, targets and public expenditure constraints on staff. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point about cost-effectiveness to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The next report, covered by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, and touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, is the 17th report of the Public Accounts Committee, relating to the sale of Government shareholdings. I shall limit my remarks to the report and not refer to privatisation. The Treasury minute was quite clear on this subject. All I would add is that it is impossible to make a set of rules for the sale of shares. In each case the situation is different. The PAC acknowledges that it is easy to form a view on a case with the benefit of hindsight. All that is available in the decisions about price, method of sale and underwriting are human judgment and experience. The Treasury keeps in close touch with the City on all aspects of the sale of shares so that the best possible outcome of each sale can be attained. As promised, the concerns of the Committee are borne constantly in mind in making difficult decisions. No Department is interested in underpricing the sale of its shares.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, his hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Hodge Hill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) referred at length to the 21st report of the PAC, on regional industrial incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has made a particular study of this topic, and I shall consider with care his important contribution to our debate.
I wish to deal with the points raised in the debate and in the report. The Government's policy change was the

product of an exhaustive review. The difficulty of measuring the results of what is being done is enormous. This was touched on by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill. Much as we should like to be able to devise a simple yardstick, no one has managed to do so. It is easy enough to measure net increases and decreases in employment in assisted areas. What is also required is a measure of what would have happened without the incentives. That must inevitably involve speculation. The research that is being undertaken is aimed at getting better information. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that the object of the change in policy was to target the incentives more closely on job creation, thus making the operation less expensive and critically more cost-effective.
Many hon. Members spoke on the 33rd report, on economy of stores support in the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, the hon. Member for Truro, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, the hon. Member for Normanton and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill all addressed themselves to that issue. Because of the experience of the hon. Member for Hodge Hill, I was pleased at his remarks about the complications specifically in relation to Donnington.
The PAC reports on stores and stockholding practices in the MOD have been carefully considered, as has been the earlier independent report on stockholding by Mr. Levene. A comprehensive programme of work is in hand in the MOD, covering economies in stores and stockholding arrangements. Many suggestions in the PAC report were already being examined or implemented—for instance, the improvement of financial control by means of executive responsibility budgets and the use of computerised techniques to allow increased visibility of stocks. Where the suggestions made were not already under review, studies have been undertaken to recommend improvements where necessary. Some studies are complete. Others will report within the next 12 months. I have read all the reports, including the evidence, with care. I have also listened with great care to the debate. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will not think that the Treasury, like any other Department, can afford to be complacent. I shall take note of the obvious concern that has been expressed by the Committee.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am pleased to hear the Financial Secretary say something about visibility. He has taken note of the point that, whereas the RAF knows what stores it has in local bases, the Army has no knowledge at all, with the Royal Navy coming in between. Will what the Financial Secretary has said mean that there will be an assessment of the stores held by the Army at its local depots?

Mr. Moore: Perhaps I may elaborate on that. It is a little more complex. As he chaired the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will know that progress has been made in obtaining greater visibility of stocks. The Navy department now has 96 per cent. visibility of stocks at its main depots. This will increase to 98 per cent. by the end of the year. A decision has been taken to link Gibraltar to the computerised inventory supply procedure during 1986–87. Proposals are under consideration for including Royal Fleet Auxiliary stocks.
There is no plan in the short term to make visible the stocks held on HM ships and at Fleet shore establishments


for operational tasks, as they would not be available for reallocation. Their values are estimated at £250 million to £300 million and £25 million to £50 million respectively. However, they will be included in the Royal Navy's onboard ADP system in ships—OASIS. It is envisaged that links between OASIS and CRISP will make the holdings visible to stock managers.
The Army department's stock visibility is being progressed as new ADP systems are introduced and existing systems are enhanced. It is planned to have visibility of BAOR theatre stocks by 1987, with visibility down to divisional level by 1990. Obviously I shall consider the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that the additional points would be helpful to the Ministry of Defence if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further.
The sixth report on the housing benefit scheme was referred to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the hon. Member for Normanton, the hon. Member for Truro and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill. I must refer here to the Treasury' minute, which said that the conclusions of the Department's review would have to be considered as part of the wider social security review. The DHSS responses to individual criticisms pointed out the practical and legal difficulties of meeting all the Committees's concerns.
All of us have considerable constituency experience of the problems that have been addressed tonight. The report of the review team which was chaired by Jeremy Rowe has been published, as has the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security". The proposals on housing benefit, as the hon. Member for Hodge Hill fairly said, aim at simplification, but that is not easy because the benefit goes to about one in three households. The appeals system should be given a longer trial.
Less dependence on direct financial support from the Government, specifically for housing benefit costs, thus increasing local accountability and improved monitoring, continue to be favoured in the Green Paper as the keys to greater efficiency. New guidance on handling overpayments has been given to local authorities, but improvement in cross checking must await the outcome of the Green Paper proposals. The Green Paper is clearly involved here, and I shall draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services the points raised in the debate.
The ninth report deals with the monitoring and control of nationalised industries, and many hon. Members are interested in that. I am delighted to say that the Government welcome the PAC endorsement of the overall monitoring and control structure which derived originally from the 1978 White Paper, and which has been developed since.
There was a similar endorsement recently in the 18th report in relation to the water industry. I also welcome the PAC's recognition that there has been an improvement in the application of these arrangements. Monitoring arrangements have been strengthened considerably in recent years and the Treasury has an interest in the PAC's concern to promote those matters.
I do not usually take issue with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but I have to take issue with him slightly on those of his arguments which, I am sure, as the hon. Member for Hodge Hill said, we shall be addressing at another stage. I assume that there is a possibility of a debate, but it is not up to me. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that divergence existed between

EFL and other targets. I shall quote specifically from the Treasury minute, which was carefully drawn on this. Paragraph 11 of the Treasury minute says:
The Treasury and the three departments do not believe that a divergence of view exists over the position of the EFL in the control framework. As a general presumption. investment allocations, EFLs and financial targets should all be compatible and the question of precedence of one over the other does not arise. At the time of setting it would be expected that EFLs would be consistent with the financial targets. Although short-term trading fluctuations might affect an industry's EFL performance in a particular year, over the medium-term period covered by a financial target such fluctuations should generally even out. This is consistent with the central position in the control framework ascribed to financial targets in the 1978 White Paper. EFLs and financial targets are, therefore, to be regarded as two elements of the control system, applying to different time periods and, to some extent, measuring different financial flows. It follows that the purpose of medium-term planning is unaffected.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne quite legitimately adverted to an important point on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to nationalised industries and the desire to follow public money wherever it goes. Let me reiterate the Government's position. It was made quite clear in the context of the proceedings on what is now the National Audit Act, and it has not changed. The Committee's motives are quite understandable, but there is another dimension — the effect that there might be on management.
The Government believe that with such exposure to parliamentary criticism of the conduct, as distinct from the results, of the nationalised industries, it would be impossible to expect the industries to conduct themselves on strictly commercial lines. The Government's preferred alternative to C and AG/PAC investigation is the regular programme of MMC investigations, with which the industries co-operate. I am sure we shall discuss this issue again.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Before the Minister leaves that point, I must point out that there have been some changes in the attitude of the nationalised industries. I have had discussions with them, and the hon. Gentleman may have had discussions with some of the nationalised industries. They feel that some of their fears were over-emphasised. A greater understanding of the 'work of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee is bringing about a number of changes. The Minister has seen changes even in the Treasury. A number of his colleagues are looking at this in a slightly different way, and perhaps the Minister is a little pessimistic. I am sorry to hear that.

Mr. Moore: I said with great care that I was sure we would come back to this issue, and the point the right hon. Gentleman has just made confirms my view of that. I shall look carefully at the point that he has made.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. the hon. Member for Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) mentioned the 17th report of the current Session on the general dental service and noted the welcome fact that dental health in Britain has continued to improve and should improve further. I understand that new information, to be published shortly, will confirm that fact.
The report's eight findings and recommendations were directed mainly at existing policies and the rectification of some relatively small, but not unimportant, problems. It will be clear from the Treasury minute that the health


Departments have already begun to tackle the problems vigorously. More staff are to be appointed to the dental reference service and work has already begun on calculating the annual costs of unsatisfactory treatment and on remedying the problems relating to the remuneration system of dental practitioners. The hon. Member for Hodge Hill mentioned unnecessary treatment, and urgent consideration will be given to the recommendations of the committee of inquiry as soon as its report is received.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South mentioned the second report of the 1984–85 Session on the control of diplomatic service manpower, and my hon. Friend touched on the 15th report of this Session on management of the overseas estate. I thank him for his compliment about the ways in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has diligently followed up the work of the PAC. I shall have to consider what he said about the area where the Treasury could relax a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South, in his usual diligent way, asked many questions about the Health Service. He dipped into many reports dealing with the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, parallel imports, review contracts and the procurement pattern, which is dealt with in the 28th report of the 1983–84 Session. I shall certainly look again at those matters from the Treasury point of view and press the DHSS.
My hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne reminded us again of our debate on the 12th report, on premature retirement, which was discussed under the new Estimates procedure. My hon. Friend also reminded us again of the 16th report, on manpower control, though I have to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) did not, for once, raise that matter. I shall give careful consideration to all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South asked us to consider aspects of the 21st report of the current Session, on ECGD. I can bring the House up to date on the figures. Trading results for 1984–85 were better, with a loss of £9.2 million, compared with a £148 million loss in 1983–84, but the cash position was worse, as earlier losses required more cash provision. Borrowings from the Consolidated Fund on 31 March this year were £392·5 million, compared with £42·3 million a year earlier. On 31 July this year borrowings had reached £520 million and were still rising, but it is expected that the underlying trading performance will go on improving. I note particularly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, I should say that it is clear that the operation of the ECGD is financed by cash from the Consolidated Fund. Its commercial amounts are completely compatible with the Consolidated Fund amounts. My hon. Friend asked whether the objectives remained the same, and the answer is yes. I refer him to the Treasury minute. It is not necessary for us to match competitors exactly, but I know that my hon. Friend will be reassured about the objectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough also mentioned what is known as the Levene report. All I can

say is that there is no reason to suppose that any similar reports in future will not be released. I know that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will be pleased to hear that.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned the 24th report of the 1984–85 Session and I understand the interconnection of the report with that of the Select Committee on Defence. I hope it is understandable that, as we had 51 PAC reports to consider. I have not yet looked at the report of the Select Committee on Defence.
On this very complex matter the Treasury minute seeks to point out that the costings must inevitably be speculative at this stage, but are the best possible. Re-examination of them has confirmed the expectation of worthwhile savings. They will be updated in due course when tenders are received. In the minute, reference was made to the Secretary of State's announcement on 23 July of the decision to go for the commercial management option. The interim measures are thought to be realistic in terms of what can be expected in the run-up to a major structural change.
The MOD regards the dockyards efficiency scheme as having been worthwhile. Its future is now bound up with the interim measures pending contractorisation. Comparisons with commercial refits would not be wasted, as the results would be available to incoming commercial managers. The Comptroller and Auditor General would have the necessary access to the records to fulfil his duties. I shall, however, in the light of the particularly detailed defence questions asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, make sure that I ask the Ministry of Defence to respond to these points.
The last report which was touched on in some detail, and to which a response was requested, was referred to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in relation to the Forestry Commission. The right hon. Member drew the attention of the House, quite properly, to a rather important aspect of the second report, looking at this particular topic. It is important for me to make sure that the House is aware that the Treasury minute noted the Committee's conclusions and recommendations and was
pleased to note the provision of information [on land sales] in confidence on request will enable the Committee to satisfy itself on Parliament's behalf'. 
The Treasury minute confirms that the
Commission will do its utmost to secure the assent of any purchasers of forestry land to the public disclosure of information about the transaction.
I confirm that the commission's 1984–85 and subsequent annual reports will include information and analyses of sales of land on a regional basis. I am aware that this is not as far as the right hon. Gentleman would wish to go, but I wanted to make sure that the Treasury's comments on that were on the record.
Mr. Robert Sheldon I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for what he has said, but the crucial thing about the disclosure of the price realised after the sale is not that the Public Accounts Committee is made aware of it, because we do not have the knowledge or the understanding of the particular land that is being sold. If there is a general disclosure, however, this is the greatest safeguard against fraud that one can have. As Hamilton


college of education was sold for a song, we are concerned about these matters. This is the only real safeguard that exists. That is why we consider it to be so important.

Mr. Moore: I am aware and supportive of the nature of the right hon. Member's concern, as I obviously responded to the PAC report with a note on the Hamilton college issue. I just wanted to make sure that the House was aware, within the minute, of the other balanced point that the Treasury sought to make.
I do not want to belabour the House with further comments. I shall just repeat what I said at the beginning. No one who has not served on the PAC—and most of us here have done so—has any understanding of the enormity of the work that is done by those who serve the House. They serve both the House and the country admirably.
I can end with no better tribute than that which essentially I uttered on 20 March 1984. I noted tonight that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Members for Swansea, East and for Normanton were all concerned about what they regarded as the poor attendance of non-participants in our debate in the House. At the time of the last debate I quoted from Hansard in 1976 words which I thought were very important:
The success of the Committee's work cannot and should not be measured by the attendance of hon. Members in this House when the reports are debated, but by the way in which it changes the future of those who appear before it, and changes the way Government operations are conducted."—[Official Report, 20 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 982.]
Those are the words of the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I can see no better way of ending our debate than with his words, wise then, and still wise today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 10th to 24th and 26th to 35th Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1983–84, of the 1st to 25th Reports of Session 1984–85 and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance Memoranda on those Reports (Cmnd. 9226, 9325, 9368, 9373, 9452, 9464, 9530, 9546, 9587, 9638, and 9639), with particular reference to the following Reports:—

1983–84

13th Evasion and Enforcement of Vehicle Excise Duty 
17th Sale of Government Shareholdings in publicly owned companies
21st Regional Industrial Incentives
33rd MOD: Economy of Stores Support
1984–85

6th Housing Benefits Scheme
9th Monitoring and Control of Nationalised Industries 
17th NHS: General Dental Service

Water (Fluoridation) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES AT REQUEST OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "area" to end of line 13.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment simply seeks to clarify the drafting of clause 1(1). The words that the amendment deletes comprise an amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) on behalf of the water industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is only the technical feasibility of fluoridation proposals, not the ethical and medical arguments, which will be covered as far as the water industry is concerned.
The amendment was accepted at the time and it was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West (Mr. Patten), then the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, that the extra words were probably not necessary. He accepted the amendment conditionally on the understanding that substantial redrafting would have to be clone. After considering the matter, we find that the words are not only unnecessary but that they would render the Bill legally ambiguous even with redrafting. The Bill is intended to remove ambiguity, so it would be sensible to delete the words.
Any statutory water undertaking considering fluoridation is bound to consider whether it is technically feasible and whether it can be done in such a way as to limit the supply of fluoridated water to an area. The further gloss of the additional words is therefore unnecessary.

Sir John Page: There is a certain amount of déjà vu about being back here discussing fluoridation. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate him on assuming his important new position. This is the first time that I have addressed him in the House since then, although I have already written him about 700 letters on health matters.
My right hon. Friend clearly described what has happened about this amendment.
I feel like a man who thought that he needed some spectacles. A committee discussed whether he did and he was told to put them on. He was told that the prescription might need altering but later the spectacles were snatched from him and he was told that he did not need them at all.
My right hon. Friend has made me happy because the water industry is particularly anxious not to be involved in the medical and ethical aspects of the Bill. The industry believes that it has only a technical responsibility. My right hon. Friend's remarks are extremely helpful, especially since Lords amendment No. 6 puts certain responsibilities on health authorities which are not similarly put on water undertakers.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As I was saying when I was interrupted in March, the Bill is no good. It is not good for young people; it is no good for old people; it is no good for adults; it is no good for society because it


removes freedom of choice; it is no good for the Government who are losing their reputation for upholding the liberty of the individual; it is no good for the reputations of my hon. Friends who were enthusiastically against fluoridation and who have now changed their minds; it is no good for Parliament, because it is against the wishes of the people.
I rise in a last effort to improve the Bill—if not to make a bad Bill good, at least to try to make it better.
As was widely suspected last time we discussed the Bill, I did not have a full opportunity to deploy my arguments. I had hardly passed the introduction when it was time to stop. I have been under pressure to lengthen my contributions. I recall the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then the Minister for Health, who, observing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said that he was sure that he did not have a beard at the beginning of my speech. I see that tonight the hon. Gentleman's beard is very long. Perhaps it will be longer before these proceedings are over. I have no wish to delay the House longer than is necessary.
I am told that while I was speaking an American visitor asked what I was talking about and received the answer, "About four and a half hours." When the visitor said, "Yes, but what is he speaking on?"—from one of the attendants, I believe—the answer was, "I do not know. He did not say." That means that I must have been speaking too fast. Indeed, people have said that I should slow down so as to ensure that my arguments get across. It is clear from the way in which the House has filled up for this debate that many people still do not understand the arguments. I can report, however, that since we last met in these pleasant circumstances at a reasonably relaxed hour of the night people all over the country and, indeed, the world have come forward to say that they do not want fluoridation. No doubt in the course of these deliberations we shall be able to refer to various excellent examples.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the survey conducted by the Leicestershire community health council? That survey posed the very neutral question,
From what you have heard, do you think that fluoride can help reduce tooth decay?
The answer from 79 per cent. of respondents was "Yes". My hon. and learned Friend and I may not agree with that answer, but it shows the disinterested nature of the report. People were then asked:
If fluoride can reduce tooth decay, are you in favour of it being available for individual application in toothpaste, school milk, tablet form, etc.?
To that question, 82·24 per cent. of respondents answered "Yes". The critical question was:
If fluoride can reduce tooth decay, do you think it should be added to the public water supply?
Bearing in mind the disinterested nature of the questions so far and the answers suggesting widespread support for fluoride, it is surprising to note that only 26·64 per cent. said "Yes" and a massive 62·72 per cent. said "No", meaning that fluoride should not be added to the water supply.

Mr. Lawrence: I am indeed aware of that survey. The Lincoln, Rutland, and Stamford Mercury reported on Friday 30 September 1985:

The results, according to a press release from the CHC, have dealt 'a body blow' to the pro-fluoride lobby.
It then goes on to quote from the community health
council.
In the past, we have not greatly favoured community health councils having a decisive role because they are not democratically elected, but we may now have to revise our views as the Leicestershire community health council is not the only one to take such a position. The Somerset community health council at a meeting on 24 July this year also condemned, by 11 votes to three, the Government's attempt to allow fluoridation of the water supply. That decision was taken after speakers from both sides had been heard. The only occasions on which community health councils vote in favour of fluoridation tend to be those on which the "anti" side is not heard or is ignored.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the "massive" 60-odd per cent. referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) represented those who said "No", meaning that fluoride should not be added to the water supply, rather than those who said that they did not know?

Mr. Lawrence: The question was:
If fluoride can reduce tooth decay, do you think it should be added to the public water supply?
To that question, 1,489, or 26·64 per cent., answered "Yes", 3,506 or 62·72 per cent. said "No" and 595 or 10"64 per cent. said that they did not know. A total of 5,590 people were surveyed. The community health council said:
A totally unbiased survey has been conducted and we believe that the figures clearly speak for themselves, and we hope that full account will be taken of them.
There are bound to be some people like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) who are disappointed that their views are not accepted by the general public in Leicestershire. This happens to be a democracy, however, and in a democracy the voice of the few must give way to the wishes of the many on matters such as this. My right hon. and hon. Friends say Amen to that.

Mr. Davis: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has described the survey as completely unbiased and as he is obviously so widely read in the local newspapers of that part of the country, will he say whether he saw a letter in the Loughborough Echo written by a lady who described her experience of being invited to take part in the survey? In her letter, which was published on 14 June, she said:
I am angry about something that happened while I was waiting … with a group of children and feel your readers should be made aware of it. I was approached by a lady who said politely that I looked too busy to be troubled with a questionnaire on fluoride. When I said that it was something I believed in and that I would take the trouble to fill it in she turned to me and said: 'You're never in favour of putting fluoride in our water are you? What if I get cancer?' I was so taken aback that it was a moment before I could say that perhaps if she had such strong views on the subject she should not be doing the survey.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman still maintain that the survey was unbiased?

Mr. Lawrence: It is quite pitiful that, when there is a survey of 5,590 people, the pro-fluoridation lobby can produce only one person, who was no doubt encouraged to write to the newspaper. It is always possible to find


people who will respond to such pressure. If the hon. Gentleman can find only one person out of 5,590 who were asked their views in an independent and absolutely unbiased survey conducted by the community health council—they frequently support fluoridation—and not the anti-fluoridation lobby, he has revealed the hollowness of the pro-fluoridation lobby.

Mr. Davis: rose——

Mr. Lawrence: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance, I shall draw his attention to the public opinion poll that the pro-fluoridation lobby has taken and in which the question was so biased that hundreds of people got the answer wrong.

Mr. Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the pro-fluoridation lobby can produce only this one person. Will he allege that Mrs. Alyson Kettle of Langdale avenue, Loughborough, who wrote the letter, was put up to it by the pro-fluoridation lobby or will he withdraw the allegation?

Mr. Lawrence: That is a very silly intervention.

Mr. Davis: You said it.

Mr. Lawrence: I do not know this good lady from Leicestershire or the circumstances in which she wrote. I would not dream of demeaning her. No doubt she is an honest and upright lady, hut, as I have not had the opportunity to examine her to establish on what basis the letter was written, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
One example of bias out of 5,590 people surveyed hardly speaks loudly in support of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend speaks, may I say that the service that he has done to draw the attention of the people of Leicestershire and the rest of the country to the evils of fluoridation have been stirring almost beyond words. Without my hon. Friend's activities, it is at any rate doubtful whether the community health council in Leicestershire would have conducted this operation. All of us who believe that fluoridation must be resisted because of the harm that it will do to health and because it will interfere with people's freedoms have much to thank my hon. Friend for.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Leicester. East (Mr. Bruinvels) rises, may I tell him and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that this is not a general debate on the benefit or otherwise of fluoride. I direct their attention to the amendment, which says:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from "area" to end of line 13.
The hon. Gentleman must direct his argument to the amendment and not to the general principle of whether fluoride should be introduced.

Mr. Lawrence: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was sidetracked by hon. Members who asked for specific answers to specific questions which were out of order. I ought to have been less courteous to them and more courteous to the Chair. I hope that you will forgive me. Perhaps in due course at the proper moment my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will be able to explain the Leicester survey.
I am against Lords amendment No. 1 because it removes a protection that this House put into the Bill. I concede that this House did not provide the best possible protection in the Bill, and I concede that the form in which that limited protection was produced was somewhat inelegant. I also concede that some of its wording at any rate may have been mere surplusage. Nevertheless, by removing that clause the Bill and its scope have been expanded against the interests of the country and in favour of the views of those hon. Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill clearly laid down that the fluoride content of water could be increased only if, in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker, it was "reasonably practicable" to do so. That phrase has been removed, and it is that to which I object.
What is reasonable has been interpreted endlessly by the courts, and as I wish to hurry on the proceedings I shall not at this stage go into those various definitions of the word "reasonable". What is practical has, likewise, often been defined by the courts, and again there is no need to waste time on that.
It is not necessary to refer to those two words because the courts have provided definitions for the phrase "reasonably practicable". For example:
'Reasonably practicable' (Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 (c. 77). s. 23). What is 'reasonably practicable' depends upon a consideration whether the time, trouble and expense of the precautions which might be taken are disproportionate to the risk involved".
That was the decision of the court in the case of Marshall v. Gotham Company reported in Appeal Cases, 1954, at page 360.
It was defined again in the case of Braham v. Joseph Lyons and Company in 1962 in the following terms:
'So far as is reasonably practicable' (Factories Act 1937 (c. 67), s. 25(1) as amended, now Factories Act 1961 (c. 34), s. 28(1)) does not mean that a factory floor must be kept free from obstructions and slippery substances at all times but that all reasonable measures must be taken to keep it free 
In Scotland in 1964, in the case of Fern v. Dundee Corporation, it was stated:
If a precaution is practicable it must be taken unless in the whole circumstances, that would be unreasonable".
I might add that "reasonable" in this context has a separate meaning from the word "practicable". It does not always have a separate meaning. In a case in 1950, Naylor Benzon Mining Co., the learned judge said:
The words 'reasonably necessary', used as a phrase in which the adverb is designed to qualify the adjective, are meaningless. A thing is necessary or it is not necessary. It may be regarded or treated as necessary in one context and not in another, but the context cannot be provided by merely preceding the word 'necessary' with an adverb such as 'reasonably'. As it stands, the phrase, to me, is a contradiction in terms.
That criticism cannot be levelled at the phrase "reasonably practicable". Therefore, if one applies the definitions to the circumstances of fluoridation, what is reasonably practicable is this: that the Bill gives the water undertakers the power to fluoridate. Before the clause was amended by their Lordships, it obliged the water authorities to use their discretion and to take into account what was reasonably practical. That means that they can fluoridate unless it would be unreasonable to do so.
I argue that it would be downright unreasonable for a water authority to fluoridate against the clearly expressed wishes of democratically elected district and county councils. Moreover, if the community health


council in an area expresses its disapproval, not just through a vote of the council but through a public opinion poll—even with all the obvious faults that that has—it would be utterly unreasonable for the water authority to go against the wishes of the people and force them to be mass-medicated.
I might be asked to show the House some practical examples of where fluoridation would take place against the wishes of the people, and would therefore be unreasonable. In answer to that, I give the House the example of Leicestershire and Somerset. I can give the example of the health authority and the water authority in the midlands, which decided to fluoridate. Their decision was directly contrary to views expressed by Staffordshire county council, Shropshire county council, Gloucestershire county council, Herefordshire county council and Worcestershire county council. Some district councils also expressed a view—

Mr. Frank Dobson: What did Warwickshire do?

Mr. Lawrence: That council is not on my list. Perhaps it decided against fluoridation later — [Interruption.] May I finish the list first? If not, we shall be here all night, and I am trying to avoid that, if possible.
The district councils which objected include Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stafford, South Staffordshire, East Staffordshire, Lichfield, Cannock Chase, Tamworth and Stoke-on-Trent. They have all said "No". Oswestry, North Shropshire, South Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Atcham, The Wrekin and Bridgnorth in Shropshire have all said no. Malvern Hills, Wychavon, Worcester and Hereford have all said no. The district councils of Cheltenham, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Stroud and Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire have all said no. Wolverhampton, Stratford-on-Avon, South Derbyshire, Broxtowe and Nottingham councils have all said no. What do the health authority and the water authority say? Yes.
It is utterly unreasonable, it is practically unreasonable, it is unreasonably practical—whatever combination of words one uses, it cannot be reasonable for a water authority to fluoridate water in areas where the overwhelming body of county councils, district councils and community health councils disagree.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Lawrence: I give way to my hon. Friend, who has made a signal contribution to the cause.

Mr. Walker: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in Scotland the water authority is the regional council——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address his remarks to the Chair, please?

Mr. Walker: Tayside regional council, which is an elected authority, is the water authority, and it has said, "No" to fluoridation.

Mr. Lawrence: I am delighted to hear that. I suppose that I did know that, but because of the sheer number of councils that have opposed the measure I had momentarily forgotten.
The list does not end there, because there are the parish councils in the regional health authority, which are covered by the west midlands decision to fluoridate. A total of 148 have been circularised by the Staffordshire Parish Councils Association. Of the 72 replies, 12 were in favour of fluoridation—none conducted a survey—58 were against, of which 22 conducted a local survey, and two did not know. Of those responding, 86 per cent. of the parish councils in Staffordshire are against fluoridation of the water supply, and 14 in favour. Forty per cent. of those against fluoridation bothered to conduct surveys. Yet the health authority has said that fluoridation is a good step. The medical and dental know-alls are telling the people who want their freedom that their freedom can go and disappear because they know best, and are the do-gooders who will tell the people what they can and cannot have by way of medication. The words "reasonably practical"——

Mr. Bruinvels: Practicable.

Mr. Lawrence: If my hon. Friend tempts me I can show him definitions where practical and practicable mean the same thing, but I do not wish to be tempted. because I want to make progress.

Mr. Best: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the point about the councils, is he aware that I recently turned up an interesting piece of information, which shows that, as long ago as 1969, 12 councils voted against fluoridation after receiving a Ministry's circular letter on 20 June? They were Cheshire, Denbighshire, Bolton, Hastings, Southampton, Southend-on-Sea, Sunderland, Torbay, Hackney, Havering, Thames and Lewisham. Is he further aware that six other councils voted against fluoridation after the publication in July 1969 of the Ministry's 11-year report? They included Cardiganshire, Darlington, Grimsby, Salford, Southampton, Southend-on-Sea, and Esher urban district council. That does not say much for the quality of past evidence from Government Ministries, and says a lot for the way in which local authorities can respond to public opinion. I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could comment.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend's erudition is legendary. Once again he has drawn attention to a long list of those who oppose fluoridation, whom it was not possible for me to mention in my opening remarks.
I would have preferred the Bill to have given real teeth to the rights of the people to express their views about whether they wish to have this corrosive poison thrust down their throats against their wishes, whether or not it improves their teeth, whether or not it gives them cancer or some other disease, and whether or not they like it. I would rather that the Bill had some real teeth for the rights of the people to be represented by local authorities and the community health council, but alas that was not the case.
I am reduced—this is no small matter—to proposing amendments (b) and (c), neither of which you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, have chosen. I should like to refer to them, if that is in order. I should have liked the Bill to include the requirement that the authorities are requested to fluoridate by a resolution of each local authority or community health council, or both, whose area falls wholly or partly within the area affected by the application. The amendments were ruled out of order, so I am reduced to requesting—but it is no small thing—that my colleagues vote against the Lords amendment. The


restriction, limitation and qualificaion were put into the Bill to demand the statutory water authority to do what was reasonably practical—knowing full well how the courts interpret the word "reasonable", and knowing that, by a simple application of common sense, "reasonable" cannot mean going against the wishes of almost every democratically elected or representative group.
That safeguard having been taken out of the Bill by the other place, I ask my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby to ensure that it is put back into the Bill to protect the people of our country.

Mr. Best: As you have properly told the House, Mr. Speaker, this is not a general debate; it is a debate on a narrow issue—Lords amendment No. 1. But, sadly, this measure does the Conservative party no good. It gave me no pleasure to read a letter in The Listener on 26 September which stated:
Who would dream that Mrs. Thatcher, who says she is inflexible when defending the freedom of choice of the individual, would preside over a Parliament whisking through a scheme that would not disgrace a totalitarian regime? A scheme that is to legalise forcibly feeding every citizen with a dose of medicine for a disease that they may not have, via an unavoidable water supply? Everyone would be screaming in protest if it were suggested that legal powers were being taken to enable a bureaucrat to come to your door each day and force a pill down your throat to treat your teeth. Yet this is precisely what fluoridation of water achieves by a back-door and still illegal method.
I do not adopt those comments, but it saddens me to read them. They are a manifestation of the widespread feeling of antipathy towards the Bill in general — although we are not discussing that tonight. The Lords amendment seeks to delete half of clause 1(1). We are forced to speculate why that subsection was ever included. Was it an act of negligence by the parliamentary draftsmen to put in mere verbiage and persiflage — something wholly unnecessary and meaningless?

Sir John Page: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) would not want to include mere verbiage and persiflage. The other place has deleted an amendment that I recommended which was accepted on the basis that it would be heavily amended later. Therefore, we are discussing my amendment on the back of the menu, not the act of a parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. It exonerates the parliamentary draftsmen, but puts me in some difficulty. Even more do I seem forced to support the original clause, now knowing its provenance. It came from my hon. Friend, who does not lightly table amendments. I ask him whether we should still have that safeguard enshrined in the Bill when it passes into law, which it will undoubtedly do because the payroll vote will ensure that. The safeguard ensures that the statutory water undertaker is able to consider whether the additional fluoride in the amounts prescribed by the Bill is reasonably practical.
I shall not delay the House by quoting in extenso various arguments put forward by statutory water undertakers — save one. It concerns something that I noted in the Evening Argus, a newspaper circulating in the Brighton area. It appeared on 15 March under the heading
Water chiefs fluoride Bill fear".
The article read:
Putting fluoride in Sussex water supplies would cost millions of pounds and be difficult to regulate, the Southern Water Authority says. Parliament is considering a

controversial scheme allowing health authorities to ask for the fluoridation of household supplies in a bid to cut tooth decay in children. MPs gave the Bill a third reading after a mammoth debate, and the proposals will now be discussed in the House of Lords. But the Southern Water Authority is worried about who would pay. Chairman Sir Godfrey Taylor says that if the scheme is passed, either the government or health authorities should foot the cost. Any scheme would cause problems because the fluoridation of water would have to be done to exact specifications as high levels of the chemical could be dangerous. 'We are not in a position to judge whether fluoride should be added or not. We do not have medical staff,' Sir Godfrey said. 'It would cost a considerable amount of money, certainly millions, and we would expect the Government or health authorities to pay'''.
That is the view of one chairman of one statutory water undertaker. I know that that view is shared by a number of other water undertakers.
If the amendment were agreed to, with the deletion of the words as suggested, any ability of the statutory water undertaker to exercise what I regard as a right to consider whether it is practically reasonable to add fluoride to the water supplies would be removed. Effectively, the statutory water undertaker would move off the scene.
It is true that it is not mandatory on water undertakers to fluoridate water supplies on the advice of the health authority if an application is made, for it is still enshrined in the Bill that statutory undertakers
may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water".
But they are no longer required to consider whether it is reasonably practicable to do so, and that is my first objection to the deletion of those words.
Those words were added — my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West explained the manner in which they were added — specifically to give the statutory water undertaker the opportunity to consider whether it was practically reasonable to add fluoride to the water supplies. That opportunity will now be removed.
Even more insidious is the deletion of the second part of the subsection——
without at the same time increasing the fluoride content of the water supplied by them to areas outside that covered by the application.
In other words, there would no longer be a requirement if an application, in its execution, ensured that areas outside the area covered by the application received fluoridated water. There is no means to ensure that that will not happen.
This is the addition of fluoride by stealth. It will enable a statutory water undertaker to add fluoride to an area without regard—because the provision will no longer be in the Bill—to whether that fluoride goes into areas outside those covered by the application.
It is important to take account of the views of the people living in those areas. Even with the consultation process in the Bill, which we shall debate at a later stage, the measure does not recognise sufficiently the wishes of the local community, whether expressed by individuals or through directly elected authorities, which neither a health authority nor a statutory water undertaker is.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: As a matter of definition, does not the Lords amendment widen the discretion that is available to the statutory water undertaker, because, in the Bill as drafted before it went to the Lords, was not the discretion bounded by the consideration of "reasonably practicable" whereas with the deletion it can go outside that definition? Is not the iniquity of the amendment that it extends the fluoride content of


the water supplied by statutory water undertakers to areas outside that covered by the application? I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's proposition, but as to the first part, does not the amendment widen the discretion of water authorities?

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who would be a worthy opponent in court—a pleasure that I have not yet enjoyed — because he speaks the truth. The amendment widens the discretion. My hon. Friend will know, from his own profound knowledge of the law, that to have no requirement of reasonable practicability, which exists in so many other branches of the law—to which I shall not refer as my hon. and learned Friend for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) did so in some detail—would create a lawyers' paradise, but a nightmare for those who wish to have certainty in the law and some safeguards.
I accept that the words "reasonably practicable" are open to a variety of interpretations and have been the subject of litigation in many areas. However, to remove them altogether would remove the safeguards to which my hon. Friend is referring.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not the position that the removal of the words "reasonably practicable" widens the discretion of the water authorities to fluoridate, and that we are asking for a limitation? The effect of the amendment is to expand the influence of the Bill, the purpose of which is to allow as much fluoridisation as possible. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) are right, but it is important to be aware of the distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon is against anything that gives more discretion to water authorities to act against the interests of the people, is he not?

Mr. Best: The Bill is unsatisfactory because it does not allow the people who will be forced to drink the water because they cannot live without doing so and therefore consume fluoride against their wishes the ability to say that they do not want to consume fluoride. The Bill is defective ab initio. It will be even more defective if the amendment is passed, for the reason stated by my hon. and learned Friend for Burton, because it widens the scope. When there is no democratic control, as there is not on health authorities or statutory water undertakers, and no meaningful consultation clause inserted in a Bill to take cognisance of the fact so that it can be acted upon, one is forced to ask quis custodiat ipsos custodes? There is no answer to that question in the Bill because there is carte blanche.

Mr. Hickmet: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) are concerned to give powers to the statutory water undertakings to prevent the fluoridation of water, but does not the amendment as drafted, inasmuch as it applies to the reasonable practicability test, give a wider discretion to the statutory water undertaking? Let us suppose that the Bill were to be enacted without the Lords amendment. If a local authority or a statutory undertaking were to fluoridate the water on grounds other than reasonable practicability, there could be an application for judicial review, and the decision

could be challenged. If the Lords amendment is made, does it not widen the discretion of the statutory water undertaking to do precisely that which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn wish to do, and make it more likely that the fluoridation of water will be prevented? The iniquity is that the amendment pays no regard to wider questions.

Mr. Best: I can encapsulate the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and my own by saying that in the clause, as drafted, there are three safeguards. First, on a health authority's application the statutory water undertaker is entitled to fluoridate the water supplies. It is not forced to do so. That is inherent in the word "may". The statutory water undertaker may increase the fluoride content of the water. The water undertaker will therefore consider whether or not to fluoridate the water supply.
The second safeguard is that certain criteria are laid down relating to the way in which the statutory water undertaker will reach a decision on whether to fluoridate the water supply. The first of the two criteria provides that in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker it is reasonably practicable to fluoridate the water supply. In the first instance, the water undertaker is given the power to say whether it will fluoridate the water supply. Then it is required to consider whether it is reasonably practicable to do so. The third safeguard is that the water undertaker must have regard to the fact that it must not increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by it to areas outside the area covered by the application.
There are three safeguards, but in reality the last two are inherent in the first. They are the criteria by which the first safeguard shall be judged. The statutory water undertaker is given guidelines by which to reach its decision. If those guidelines are removed, the statutory water undertaker is provided with no criteria and no assistance with which to reach a decision. In effect, the first safeguard is removed. The water undertaker may increase the fluoride content, but if it is not told how to reach its decision it will not be required to exercise that right in any particular way.

Mr. Hickmet: By his analysis, my hon. Friend must concede that he has argued himself into precisely the corner that I was trying to portray. The amendment widens the discretion, otherwise the statutory water undertaker's discretion will be perceived to be dependent upon two tests. If the Bill were to be passed unamended, when arguing about how it has exercised its discretion the statutory water undertaker might be found to have exercised it unreasonably if its discretion were exercised on grounds other than reasonable practicability, or the effect on water supplies outside the area supplied by it. If my hon. Friend wishes to prevent the fluoridation of water, the statutory undertaker has to be armed with a much wider discretion than it has now, otherwise it will find that it has acted ultra vires.

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend is right. No doubt he will be conversant with Professor Hart's book on administrative law. He will know the great dangers that exist where any authority is given freedom untrammelled by guidelines. The problem is that one does not know, although one may suspect, that it would be subject to


litigation as to whether a statutory water undertaker would have to act judicially. Would it have to observe the rules of natural justice? Would it have to consider both sides of the argument?
With great respect to those who drafted the Lords amendment, it has not been drafted by a lawyer who wishes to reduce the amount of litigation. If the amendment is passed, it will increase litigation. The matters to which I have referred are not answered. A point which would appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly, I suspect, to Opposition Members, is that there is a grave danger if we pass legislation which effectively delegates authority from the House to non-elected undertakers, such as a statutory water undertaker, but fail to give guidelines whereby they can be properly controlled.
I realise the strength of feeling among Opposition Members who perhaps desire to see greater central Government control than many of my hon. Friends would wish. Many of us on this side of the House wish to see local authorities taking more decisions. If Opposition Members are concerned about a negation of centralised control, about power slipping from the grasp of the House and about giving untrammelled powers to statutory water undertakers or any other authority, they should support the amendment, because it would achieve that. It would give water authorities complete freedom to exercise a decision to fluoridate water supplies without giving any criteria by which that decision might be regulated. That is particularly insidious, damaging and alien to the belief of most of us that a sacred function of Members of Parliament is to ensure that power does not go too far beyond the elected member, nationally or locally.
I have dealt with the question whether the "reasonably practicable" test will disappear. I am even more concerned about the total absence of a requirement that there should not be artificial fluoridation of water supplies outside the area of an application. By removing the second portion of words which would be deleted by the amendment we would achieve that object. I do not think I was being euphemistic or unfair to the Bill by describing it as fluoridation by stealth. That is precisely what would happen. Either there is a need for a health authority to make an application to determine that an area will be fluoridated, or that in itself is a mere chimera, a mere piece of window dressing for massive artificial fluoridation of the whole country.
If we believe that there is significance in clause 1 as drafted—that a health authority be required to make an application for artificial fluoridation of water supplies—that in itself must be precise or it is meaningless. If it is not precise, it becomes meaningless because people outside the area of the application will be affected.
My grave concern is precisely that the deletion of these words achieves that object. No doubt the Benthamites among us will say that that does not matter as long as the majority of people are happy getting fluoride in the water supplies, that if there are one or two objectors that is tough luck. It may be unfortunate that they live in an area outside the area covered by the applications made by the health authority, or it may be that no decision has been taken for their area. Of course, there is no consultation for them, even within the present confines of the Bill. There is no consultation for an area outside the area covered by the substance of the application. One can understand that argument.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the end of this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Water (Fluoridation) Bill, and proceedings on the Housing Bill [Lords], the Housing Associations Bill [Lords], the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Landlord and Tenant Bill [Lords] and the Weights and Measures Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Joaes.]

Water (Fluoridation) Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Best: One can understand the argument that the majority must always have sway, that it is a question of the greatest good done for the greatest number. Perhaps I have not quoted Bentham with complete accuracy. It is one thing to say that in matters which do not affect the health and well-being of individuals, but it is an entirely different matter to say that in respect of an individual who for the sustenance of life must drink from the water supply and has no alternative source. I do not subscribe to this view, and I hope that the House rejects the view that in this respect the greatest good for the greatest number must hold sway.

Mr. John Golding: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Jeremy Bentham is one of the deader constituents in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? The hon. Member looks as if he died from fluoride poisoning.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman has made a personal reference and I will not follow him down that route.
Many people claim to be adversely affected by fluoride. Some of those claims are groundless. One also knows that there is conclusive evidence that fluoride can be harmful. It was said somewhat uncharitably about my hon. Friend the Minister then responsible for the passage of this Bill —not by me, I hasten to add—that he had been an opponent of artificial fluoridation for most of his life and I think he said it was his duty to oppose it. He is no Longer a member of the Front Bench and is not dealing with this Bill. He answered a parliamentary question of mine which I quoted in the earlier debate. I do not have it to hand, but it demonstrated quite conclusively that in certain concentrations fluoride causes harm to people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has strayed from the amendment.

Mr. Best: I am properly brought to order. I do not wish to allege that the hon. Gentleman led me astray. It is my own misfeasance if I allowed him to do so.

Mr. Hickmet: My hon. Friend complains about the amendment inasmuch as it deletes the requirement that the water undertaker shall not at the same time increase the fluoride content of water supplied by it to areas outside that covered by the application. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is an absolute test, an absolute rule. If the statutory undertaker, even minutely or in a limited way, were to affect the water supplied to areas outside the area covered by the application, the statutory undertaker would be in breach of the Act.
Will my hon. Friend address his mind to how we can enact a Bill to give a right to fluoridate water to the relevant statutory undertaker if we wish to prevent it from being supplied to an area outside that covered by the application when there is an absolute test? In other words, an absolute test would negate the whole purpose of the Bill. An absolute test would make it virtually impossible for a statutory undertaker to fluoridate the water without in some respects affecting water outside the area of the application. How would my hon. Friend like to see the Bill drafted? What is wrong about the way it has been amended? What is wrong with an amendment which gets round the absolute test without which one could not possibly fluoridate the water?

Mr. Best: If the House will forgive me, I shall play the devil's advocate and give what I suspect would be the Government's answer to that question. No doubt they would say that it is impossible to have an absolute test to ensure that any area outside that covered by the application would not receive artificially fluoridated water. We cannot draw boundaries with the necessary distinction and clarity. No doubt the Government would also say that it is common sense to delete the words—though that means that the original clause must have been nonsense —because we cannot ensure that outside areas will not be artificially fluoridated.
I was asked how I would overcome that problem. I would lean in favour of the individual and of the individual's choice. Therefore, I would put the onus on the health authority or authorities and the statutory water undertaker or undertakers to ensure that anybody who was likely to receive artificially fluoridated water was covered by an application. If a health authority made an application and there was a likelihood or a danger of fluoridated water going into an area outside that for which the application was made, the authority should have to ensure that its neighbouring authority, covering the outside area, made an application in respect of that area.
I would shift the onus on to the bodies that sought to fluoridate the water supply. The trouble with the clause is that the onus is on those who do not wish to receive fluoridated water. I find it extraordinary that more hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, do not understand that insidious development.

Mr. Golding: I do not see how the transportation of fluoridated water can be avoided. When some of us go fishing, we fill flasks with tea or coffee which may be made with fluoridated water. We may go to a river 70 or 80 miles away and at the end of the day pour into a stream the tea or coffee that we have not consumed. How could a water authority or a health authority control that massive transportation of fluoridated water?

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed, not to say transparent. In the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman, control would be impossible, but, in fairness to the Bill, I should make it clear that it says that the statutory water undertaker is obliged to ensure that water supplied by it to areas outside that covered by its application will not be artificially fluoridated. So there is a measure of control there.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman with an example from my own constituency. As well as being the most beautiful

constituency in the country, it is also an island and is able to receive water supplies fairly isolated from the mainland. In consequence, it would be very easy to ensure that fluoridated water went only on to the island of Ynys Môn and did not go to Gwynedd. Indeed, there is a new water link from the mainland to Ynys Môn which tops up the water to Anglesey in the event of drought or of reservoirs reaching a low level. The nonsense of that is that that water is not fluoridated and so the amount of the fluoride which is provided to Ynys Môn is unknown because it is dissipated by the addition at certain times of non-fluoridated water.

Mr. Bruinvels: Has my hon. Friend considered the point that in Eire the water is fluoridated already? Are not the hon. Members' constituents already in danger of fluoridated water coming across the Irish sea?

Mr. Best: Much comes across the Irish sea and I will not speculate on whether it is all beneficial or harmful. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will not follow him down that path.

Mr. Hickmet: rose——

Mr. Best: I will give way in a moment.
The problem of this amendment is not just what I have already stated. The notes on the Lords amendment—one is always grateful to the Government for producing notes on Lords amendments or on any other matter, and I congratulate them on having done so—on clause 1 say:
This amendment clarifies the meaning of Clause 1 subclause 1 by deleting the final wording.
"Clarifies"!
The House may well feel enlightened as a result of my words tonight, but I doubt whether I shall have clarified the matter because it is not capable of clarification. Members may feel like the judge who listened to F.E. Smith when he said, "Your Honour may well be none the wiser but he is certainly better informed." I feel that I may well have better informed the House tonight, but it may well be that the House is none the wiser.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: In his attempt to be fair-minded and even-handed, and even in his attempt to put the Government's case for them on this Lords amendment, on which I doubt that they would have dared to put such an argument, I am worried by the horrifying prospect that is being opened up as a result of the Lords amendment. My hon. Friend has talked about the onus on the health authority having regard to a neighbouring health authority, but where is the onus or obligation on the water authority? Take the remote possibility of a request being made for the Ynys Môn water supply to be fluoridated. The onus having been removed as a result of this amendment, what control would there be on the water authority for it not to treat the rest of its area in the same way? We would have the ridiculous situation of the Welsh water authority deciding, if it has a request for Ynys Môn water to be fluoridated, that there is no obligation on it not to fluoridate neighbouring areas. By that interpretation, my constituency of Cardiff, North, 200 miles——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I thought that the hon. Member was making an intervention, but it is now turning into a speech. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will be able later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will amplify his point.
These are the inherent anomalies. This is a very limited debate because it is entirely about the words to be deleted. Unfortunately, there is much more to be said on other amendments, so I shall proceed.
10.15 pm
Hon. Members have done the House a service by pointing out that anomalies will result from reducing safeguards. The Lords amendment removes the safeguards in a poignant and insidious way. If we knew on the best evidence available that the majority of people in the country, or even the majority in certain areas, were in favour of the artificial fluoridation of water supplies, the debate would not be so important. However, the debate is about areas outside those covered by an application and it is important precisely because we know on the best evidence available most people are against the fluoridation of water supplies.
The people might be misinformed. They might be totally misguided. They might be the lackeys of those who use scaremongering tactics to lead people down a path where no rational human being would go. Socialists behave like that every time Conservative Governments are elected and Conservatives do the same whenever Socialist Governments are elected. Misguided or misled, that is their view and it is the substance of democracy.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) who in an intervention quoted a letter. He suggested that people were incapable of expressing their view with clarity. He suggested that every answer to an opinion poll was weighted either by the way in which the question was put or by the way in which the questioner asked the question. That is insulting. People are capable of expressing views.
The hon. Gentleman cannot challenge the Leicestershire community health council survey on the basis of the questions being interested because they are manifestly and patently disinterested. One could not find a question which was more evenly balanced. The hon. Gentleman cannot attack the poll at that level and therefore he is forced to attack it by accusing an unnamed questioner who pushed a lady up against a wall and threatened either physical or mental violence to persuade her to say something which was alien to her. I find that incomprehensible.

Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. He must read carefully what I said. I did not suggest that the interviewer used threats. The hon. Member made a silly statement. I suggested that there was bias in the conduct of the survey. That is based on the letter which I quoted.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to a letter in a newspaper which supported the poll. I was drawing attention to other letters which the hon. and learned Gentleman chose not to read or had not seen. I allege that there is some evidence—I put it no higher—that the poll was not scientifically conducted. Bias can occur in the way in which a sample is drawn as well as in the way in which a question is phrased. Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. He asserts that the majority of people are opposed to fluoridation. Where is his evidence?

Mr. Best: If I followed that argument, I should be out of order. If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, the fault is mine. I am grateful for the clarification because the hon. Gentleman apparently is not attacking the survey on the basis of the questions asked or on the way in which those taking the survey conducted themselves in public.

Mr. Terry Davis: But I am.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman shifts his ground. He says that there might be some evidence, but nothing tangible.
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the survey was not conducted scientifically. That may be so—I do not know. It may not have been conducted in the way in which National Opinion Poll and Marplan conduct their surveys, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I would have some misgivings about the scientific nature of those surveys, too. Nevertheless, it remains the best evidence that we have in answer to disinterested questions as to the recent opinion of people in a particular area who have now had the benefit of a very wide-ranging debate about fluoride, both within and outside the House.
If the deletion proposed in the Lords amendment is accepted, we shall be telling people in areas outside those covered by an application that we do not care about their opinion because the Bill provides no way in which that opinion can be assessed. The consultation procedures, such as they are, apply only to areas which are the subject of an application. No reference is made to and no cognisance is taken of areas outside. In other words, we do not care about people who will incidentally receive fluoride in their water because it is impossible to draw the thin dividing line between an area which is the subject of an application and one outside. The opinion of people in areas outside is apparently immaterial. It does not even feature in the consultation process set out in the Bill.
I find that offensive not just because of the inherent denial of the right of individuals to be consulted and to have a say about what they drink. In a free society as we know it, and certainly in a free Conservative society as Members on this side know it, people should be able to choose what they eat and drink so long as it is safe. Indeed, I hope that that proposition does not find any great dissent in any part of the House. I do not pretend that the evidence is the most conclusive, but it is the best available and it shows that a large number of people in many parts of the country are against artificial fluoridation of the water supply. For whatever reason, and however misguided they may be, they are against it. What comfort can the hon. Member for Hodge Hill—I direct these remarks at him in view of his earlier intervention, but I am sure that he will not take them personally—and what comfort can the proponents of the Bill offer, for instance, to the 3,506 people in Leicestershire who, out of a total 5,590, in answer to the disinterested question,
If fluoride can reduce tooth decay, do you think it should be added to the public water supply?
replied with an unequivocal no? What comfort can they offer those people if, perchance, those people happen to live in an area adjacent to one which is the subject of an application for artificial fluoridation of the water supply?

Mr. Hickmet: Is not my hon. Friend inviting the House to defeat the Bill altogether if he opposes the amendment because of the effect on water supplies in areas outside those covered by an application? He has agreed


with me and argued persuasively that it is impossible to avoid water being affected outside the area of an application. If he argues that the Lords amendment must be rejected for that reason, he is effectively seeking to prevent the fluoridation of water altogether. Is not that right? My hon. Friend suggested how the fluoridation of water outside the area to which the application applies could be got around—by other applications to cover those other areas. Should such applications be made if the water in those other areas is affected minimally? At what level and in what circumstances should an application be made?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has asked several questions. I shall not answer them because others wish to speak. My hon. Friend is right to say that to reject the amendment is

to kill the concept of fluoridation. I have attempted to be helpful. I accept the fact that the Bill received a Second Reading and that it was not defeated in another place, however the vote in favour of it was assembled. Much has already been said about that. I accept that the democratic will of the House is that the Bill be enacted, so I am not suggesting that it be killed; I am merely suggesting how safeguards can be introduced. That is why I have tabled the three amendments on the Notice Paper. The most important is amendment (e), which proposes in line 1, at end add and insert
provided that no resolution of any local authority or community health council within the area exists opposing artificial fluoridation of the water supplies.
The amendment would enable the Bill to be enacted and create a safeguard which many of us want in the interests of the British people.

Sir Ian Percival: I hope that my hon. Friends will not think me discourteous if I do not follow their arguments but rather take my own line.
Clause 1(1) is the principal provision of the Bill. This is the provision which will almost certainly result in millions of people having to take more fluoride, irrespective of whether they want it or not, and even if they very much do not want it. We really ought therefore to be sure of what the provision means and how it will work. It is extremely difficult to be sure of either after listening to as much of this debate as I have. Let me examine it myself to see whether I can be more sure of it.
It is pretty clear that if the Lords amendment is accepted, the fluoridation ought still to be limited to the area to which the application relates. What worries me is how on earth anybody will know. That could be so even if the other words are included, but the additional words which it is now proposed to leave out do at least draw the attention of water undertakers to something that they must not do and make it clear that they must not do it.
Before I give the impression that those words are clear, I must say that they are not. They are as much of a muddle as the rest of the clause and do not clarify it as much as I should like. They are not even grammatical. I am not sure whether we should read the "and" in the middle as if this is a hendiadys, or as if there are two separate parts. One thing is clear, however, while the words remain there, namely, that the water authority must not add fluoride if that entails there being more fluoride outside the area which figures in the application.
I have listened to everything that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench below the Gangway has said. I shall not say with how much of it I agree. I am trying to stick to things that are clear. The one thing that is clear is that so long as those words remain the water authority is put on notice that it must not add fluoride even within the area to which the application relates if greater fluoridation would thereby spread into other areas.
10.30 pm
I do not regard the additional words as very satisfactory either. They are not even grammatical. They should, I think, read:
provided it is in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker reasonably practicable to do so and without, etc.
But it is made clear that such an undertaker must not add fluoride unless it can confine the added fluoride to the area in question.
There are therefore two sets of uncertainty, and it is not easy to tell which is the least unsatisfactory. To help me arrive at a conclusion, I pray in aid the principle that those who propose fluoridation—which many others do not want—have the burden of justifying it. It should be upon them to ensure clarity.
I shall not rehearse the views that I have frequently expressed in the Chamber as to why I place that burden on those who want to do this, and I shall say no more about the evils of compulsory medication against the will of anyone, let alone against the will of substantial numbers. But I hope that the House will never lose sight of the important principles of personal freedom involved in those arguments.
I want to relate a story of something that happened to me this evening. I was discussing this matter with a friend and he asked, "Why don't you want it?" I told him, and

then I asked, "Why do you want it?" He replied, "Because I want to look after the teeth of my children." I said, "But you have that absolutely the wrong way round. You want it because you do not want to look after the teeth of your children. You want authority to look after the teeth of your children, and in order to shift that burden on to authority you are willing to foist what you want on to people who do not want it." For me that conversation encapsulates so much of what I so dislike about what is being done, and I find it difficult to understand how many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for whom I have such respect, can be party to it.
I pray all of this in aid because I believe that the onus is on those who want fluoridation to justify it and to ensure clarity. We have now reached the point at which that cannot be achieved, so we must chose the lesser of two evils. For me, that is to leave the words in the clause to make it absolutely clear that a water authority cannot add fluoride unless it can ensure that the fluoride will not go outside the area specified in the application.

Sir John Page: rose——

Sir Ian Percival: I give way to my hon. Friend, only because he looks at me with such appealing eyes.

Sir John Page: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to intervene, because I respect tremendously what he says. Does he accept that the amendment leaves it crystal clear that a water undertaker may not increase the fluoride content in the water supplied by it outside the specified area? It is technically feasible, and nothing is more simple and straightforward than to keep the fluoride in water within the specified area. Technically, there is nothing to it.

Sir Ian Percival: I knew that I should have resisted my hon. Friend's appealing eyes. I guessed that he wanted to make a second speech, particularly that part of his previous one which unfortunately I did not hear. I repeat that it may be clear to him, but it is not clear to me. The test should be whether it is clear to everyone. If it was clear to me I would be the first to say so, but I remind my hon. Friend that I said that I too think it means what he thinks is clear, but I am not so sure as he is that it is as clear as he thinks.
As I have said, the amendment also has this defect: even if what is left would be clear, how in the world would anybody know whether effect had been given to it? The additional words put the water authority on notice that it must pay attention to this point and ensure that the fluoride does not go outside the area specified. For that reason, I consider it marginally preferable that the extra words should remain in. But let there be no misunderstanding. Either way, the position is unsatisfactory, and that is another reason why I shall vote against this Lords amendment, if I have the chance. I shall do so to show once again what I think of the Bill in principle, this subsection in particular, and the confusion around which this debate has, not exactly raged, but continued for so long.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am sorry to begin with a note of caution, but it was disappointing to hear some hon. Members attack the Leicestershire community health council survey entitled, "Fluoridation in Leicestershire". I do not know all the people who took part, but I know that it was an unbiased survey. The last paragraph states:


Many conclusions and interpretations can, and doubtless will, be drawn by the differing lobbies, from the data contained in this report, but it is not the intention of the Leicestershire Community Health Council to so indulge itself. An unbiased survey has been conducted; the view of 5,590 persons obtained and their opinions honestly and clearly depicted within these pages. It is the sincere hope of the Leicestershire Community Health Council that full account will be taken of their wishes.
It is rather sad that a report which involved 148 parish councils is called "biased".

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: The Lords amendment is bad. It is unreasonable for a water authority to ignore the wishes——

Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is a poll conducted by some parish councils and the community health council in Leicestershire relevant to the Lords amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seemed to me to be stretching matters a little, but it might be construed as being relevant to the arguments being advanced.

Mr. Bruinvels: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, the survey was mentioned first by not me but by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). We are talking about whether it is reasonable——

Mr. Terry Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. Everyone who was present will remember that the matter was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The hon. Gentleman must be scared of something if he is behaving in this way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House, if indeed he did.

Mr. Bruinvels: I would never wish to mislead the House. I enjoy being here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I enjoy your indulgence. However, I repeat that the person who questioned the validity of the survey was the hon. Member for Hodge Hill. All that I am trying to show is that the survey was a reasonable one, which resulted in Leicestershire community health council being congratulated throughout the county, and Leicestershire health authority now listening to the views of the people who took part in the survey. It is important, because it proves that the water authority must also listen to the wishes of the people who reside in the county. They have a valid wish not to have fluoride in their water supply.
The survey asked:
Who do you think should take the decision whether or not to add fluoride to the public water supply?
In reply, 1,001 people thought the national Government should; 752 believed that local government should, 1,003 believed that the water authority should; and 2,265 believed that the local health authority should. Therefore, the question that we must ask is whether it is reasonable and practicable to involve the community health council. Of course it is, and it is certainly wrong and unfair for the health authority to ignore the wishes of the community health council.

Mr. Dobson: Is it only in this respect that the hon. Gentleman wishes the House to agree with the views of Leicestershire community health council, or does he agree with everything that it says?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see what that has to do with the Bill.

Mr. Bruinvels: I presume that I need not answer that question. but I shall say that I agree with the council when it conducts such a survey. I had no influence in the survey, and it is notable that the council was courageous enough to undertake a public opinion survey. It had no fixed views and was not approached by either the pure water, fluoride or anti-fluoride associations. It did it off its own bat, paid for it itself, and is to be congratulated on it. As I have the honour to represent part of the area within which the survey was conducted, I am delighted to congratulate Brian Marshall and his team on carrying it out. I am sorry that some hon. Members are frightened at what it revealed. The survey released on 11 September 1985 clearly showed that the majority of British people did not want fluoride added to their water compulsorily, even if it was good for them.
It is important that no statutory water undertaker should be allowed to introduce further fluoridation without the approval of the people who drink that water supply. What is available to those people who do not want fluoridated water is still in question. How can there be consultation without the opportunity for it? How can there be consultation without the opportunity for it? Leicester community health council has allowed us that opportunity. but many other areas have not.
Many people do not want fluoride, and in the United States regular referendums are held, yet fluoride is to be added to our supplies without the authority o the people who pay the bills for having water piped to their homes.
I am particularly worried about drought. As soon as the Minister responsible for water was appointed——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has crossed the line. I hope that he will speak more closely to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank you for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am speaking to amendment (d), which deals with the point that the fluoride content of the water supplied to areas outside that covered by the application may not be increased. There will be occasional shortages of water when it must be brought in. In those cases——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to an amendment which has not been selected for debate.

Mr. Bruinvels: With respect, it is part of Lords amendment No. 1. We are talking about the dangers of water being corroded by foreign bodies if fluoridation is introduced——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little misled. We are discussing only Lords amendment No. 1. The amendments tabled by his hon. Friends and himself have not been selected for debate.

Mr. Bruinvels: Prior to regular interruptions by some hon. Members who may not be pleased with some of our


views — there is in this Chamber such a thing as freedom and courtesy — we were discussing artificial fluoridation having to be discontinued.
Only a few weeks ago it was said that that could not happen. Well, it has happened. On 20 May 1985 the South Derbyshire health authority disclosed that its 14-year old fluoridation scheme had ceased in October 1984 because the new water supply system meant that it could no longer have an exclusive supply of artificially fluoridated water — it would fluoridate water for Nottingham and Leicester.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: The authority is, in fact, called the Southern Derbyshire health authority. A large amount of water in that area is already naturally fluoridated.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I note that she has recently joined us in the Chamber.
We do not want any problems in Leicester, which does not want fluoridated water. It is not reasonable or practicable to have that water appearing in our area.

Mr. Lawrence: The decision of the Southern Derbyshire health authority not to continue with the fluoridation of water because it would contaminate areas that did not wish to have fluoridation appears to have been taken after the publication of this Bill, which contained in clause 1(1) the proviso that, the application should not increase the fluoride content of the water supplied to areas not covered by the application.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the publication of the Bill may have influenced the decision of the authority, which no doubt knew what the legislation contained? The removal of that safeguard by another place, which is what we are debating, takes away the reminder to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) referred. Does it not underline the danger of taking out that safeguard?

Mr. Bruinvels: That is the very point — it will happen unless we overturn the Lords amendment. We must make that strict instruction clear so that all water authorities are reminded that they must not tamper with the water of a neighbouring authority. There is no way in which the areas can be cross covered.
The Leicestershire community health council, which set a good example, is still worried that its views are being ignored. Other health authorities will, I hope, listen to what the community health council suggested. I should have preferred not to go through all the stages to Lords amendments until we had taken further opinion polls to guage the views of the people.
All persons of sound mind have a right to choose what they and their children will or will not consume, and the bodily treatment which they will or will not have in their everyday lives to maintain health and prevent disease. Fluoridation deprives consumers of water to which fluoride has been deliberately added of this right, forcing one and all to consume more fluoride in uncontrolled and uncontrollable amounts.
It is reasonable to believe that it will be possible to restrict the amount of fluoride to be added to water supplies? I fear that, rather than keeping fluoride to a minimum, we shall be increasing its use. I am alarmed by what is happening, because this is a totalitarian action. We

are a democracy. We make surveys and listen to the views of the people. We in Leicestershire do not want the national Government to tell us whether we should have fluoride in our water. That is a matter for the local health authority to decide. We are going too fast in this matter. We need a public referendum, rather than rule by diktat, and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am endeavouring to be flexible and tolerant with the hon. Member, but he is now going beyond what is reasonable. This is not a Second Reading debate. The House has given the measure a Second Reading. References to referendums are not within the scope of the debate on the amendment.

Mr. Bruinvels: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am extremely concerned about the state of play tonight. This is a bad amendment, and even at this late stage I am desperately trying to stop fluoride being added to our water. The health authority is out of touch with the wishes of the people. Althought we are having a free vote for many hon. Members, the payroll vote will defeat the wishes of the people in the country.
The addition of fluoride has not been proved to be successful. It might help youngsters, but it does not necessarily help other people. As a loyal Conservative, I regret to say that this is a bad Bill, and I urge my hon. Friends to support those who do not want fluoride added to their water supply without their consent.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Some of my concerns about the amendment have already been voiced by my hon. Friends. With how many nonsenses are we dealing in considering the Bill? It is not of earth-shattering moment. our constituents are not impressed by it, and it is regarded lightly at best or otherwise greatly feared because of its compulsory mass medication aspect.
In the months that have passed since the measure was before the House the Bill seems to have changed out of all recognition, for what little protection was previously in it is now being struck out by the amendment. It has been suggested that the amendment will make the subsection crystal clear. I could only think that, at best, that was a pun on words in a water context, for I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in saying that it is a tragedy that that protection is being removed.
After all, the words that the amendment seek to delete are specific. They are most specific about the onus of responsibility that was to be on a water authority, and the concern that it must have for adjacent or other areas that would be affected by the fluoridation of one area in response to an application by a health authority. With what protection are we left after striking out that? There will be the clear implication that Parliament is saying that there need be no concern, and any area alongside or even some way away can be fluoridated without an application by a health authority.
In our earlier debates, concern was expressed about whether a health authority was the right body to make such applications. It is possible that the health authority for Ynys Môn represented by my hon. Friend the Member far Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) might make an application for the water in its area to be fluoridated. Although it is an island off the north-west corner of Wales, it has the same water authority as my constituency of Cardiff, North, 200 miles away.
The implication of Lords amendment No. 1, which takes out the firm responsibility placed on the water authority, is that there is now nothing to encourage, let alone compel, the water authority not to treat Cardiff water in the same way as that for Ynys Môn.
Just because the Ynys Môn health authority has asked for fluoridation the Welsh water authority can now, when it orders the special equipment to supply Ynys Môn with fluoridated water standardise, and order the same equipment for every area.
The Bill is far worse now than it was when we last debated it in March, on that last long night. I can sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), in referring to opinion polls or any other such test of opinion. The Bill has been altered dramatically, particularly by Lords amendment No. 1, from when we gave such long consideration debating to 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and even until 9 o'clock the following night on the last occasion. The Bill has changed so much that it should not be bulldozed through at the tail-end of the Session, when debate is necessarily confined to the Lords amendments.
I feel as strongly as any hon. Member who has spoken about Lords amendment No. 1. At the very least, it must be struck out so that the direct instruction to the water authorities is retained. If health authorities are to be the bodies making the requests to fluoridate an area, other areas that might come within the water authority deserve the protection that is now being denied to them by the amendment. I hope that we can take out the amendment, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, I would dearly love to kill the whole dreadful Bill.

11 pm

Mr. Golding: I support the Lords amendment. Those Conservative Members who oppose it are misguided. I apply this test to it: it must have been a daft amendment to have been passed, because all of our sensible, sound amendment were whipped against and defeated by the Government. The Government only allowed those amendments which support fluoridation to be passed. The other place was right to flush out the Government and to say to them that this amendment is a nonsense. Of course it is a nonsense. Why did the Government permit it to be agreed to? It was to keep the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) happy, to give him a moment of pleasure and a degree of satisfaction that on one point at least his parliamentary career has been successful.
I shall probably vote for this daft amendment, in the belief that those hon. Members who oppose fluoridation will be successful. It says that a statutory water undertaker may increase
the fluoride content of the water supplied by them within that area, provided that it is in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker reasonably practicable to do so.
A statutory water undertaker may increase the fluoride content of the water if he believes that it is reasonably practicable to do so. If the amendment said that the statutory water undertaker can do it, provided that it believes it to be reasonably practicable, it would make sense. But it makes no sense to say that the undertaker may do it if he believes that it is reasonably practicable to do so. The undertaker would not dream of doing it if it thought that it was impracticable. The amendment is a nonsense.

Mr. Lawrence: Can I put to the hon. Gentleman the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). The result of this clause is that large areas of the country will probably have their water supplies fluoridated because the water undertaker and the health authority may decide to introduce fluoride into the water. Unless a restriction is laid down which draws to the attention of the water undertaker the need to be reasonably practicable or to restrict the use of fluoridated water to areas within a particular boundary, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the mere use of the word "may" means that all of the defences are down and that any water undertaker can stand up without fear of contradiction and introduce this dreaded substance into the water supply, even though it is not wanted? Is that not the danger. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly address himself to the position if that marker is deleted?

Mr. Golding: I am not defending the Bill. It is abhorrent. Clause 1 is abhorrent. I do not think that this will be a good marker. If we had been wise enough to say, "provided it is in the opinion of" the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, and if responsibility had been placed on those two distinguished Staffordshire Members of Parliament to decide whether it was reasonably practicable, it would have made sense. It is no marker to say to a water authority, "You may do this, but you may do it only if you think that it is reasonably practicable." That is no restriction and is not worth having. What will happen? The people who are hell bent on poisoning the water supply will not admit that what they are about to do is not reasonably practicable. They will say, "It is reasonably practicable so we may do it."
If the hon. Member for Harrow, West who proposed the amendment in the first place had thought of that, he would have proposed that the test should be applied by the Staffordshire Members of Parliament. We would have applied an objective test and taken a detached view. The statutory water authorities will be prejudiced and will take a subjective view. There is no defence in the amendment.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton will say that it is better than nothing. Certainly it is not perfect. We must accept that their Lordships were right to say that it was not worth having these words. They are a sop permitted by the Government and the payroll vote to one of the more distinguished Members on their side.

Mr. Lawrence: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. It was not just that it was a sop to one of our distinguished colleagues; it was the fact that the Bill would never have come about if the water authorities had not demanded it. Will the hon. Gentleman take that matter on board?

Mr. Golding: It was not only the water authorities that demanded it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has exposed all the pressure groups and prejudiced people who have tried to foist this legislation on us.

Mr. Lawrence: The water authorities broke the camel's back.

Mr. Golding: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying from a sedentary position that the water authorities drove it through. I am not sure about putting all the responsibility upon them. I think it was misguided health authorities——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On this amendment we cannot discuss what are the presumed reasons for the introduction of the legislation. We should stick to the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. Golding: I totally agree and I regret having given way to the temptation to comment on sedentary interruptions. If there were fewer sedentary interruptions, I would be less tempted to reply to them. The constant danger is that the sedentary interruption is reported in Hansard and it looks to one's own constituents and to the world outside that one has no answer. That is why I am tempted to comment. If a little more order were imposed on those hon. Members opposing this amendment, it would be helpful. The amendment says,
 … provided it is in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker reasonably practicable to do so and without at the same time increasing the fluoride content of the water supplied by them to areas outside that covered by the application.
Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side will explain to me what that means, perhaps after I resume my seat. I do not understand what it means, I am lost. I do not know whether it is the grammar or the syntax or what it is, but it does not seem to be perfect.
 … it is in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker reasonably practicable to do so and without at the same time … 
I do not understand how that follows and I keep on puzzling about it. What does it mean? I heard only a moment or two of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). I had to go to find out about fog conditions in the midlands, but I heard him begin his speech supporting the rebellion on the Government Benches by saying we wanted clarity. There is no clarity here. The sentence does not seem to hang together. Who can explain to me what is meant by,
 … without at the same time increasing … 
Where does that tie into the sentence? I look pleadingly at the hon. Gentleman who moved the amendment. What does that relate to? It is suspended in space and it is as though he forgot to put some words in. That may happen: it is one of the dangers of the technical revolution. Word processors are all very well, but sometimes the word processer misses words, and words must have been left out of this amendment. It is bad enough inflicting fluoride on the population, but how can one inflict this wording on them at the same time?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Government side that nobody ought to have fluoride inflicted upon him. If that is not possible, then no one should have fluoride inflicted upon him in an area where the health authority and that person's authority have opposed fluoridation. That must be acceptable to Government, or should be. If they are writing into the legislation that everything depends on health authorities applying in writing and statutory water undertakers agreeing to it, if they are talking about agreement between the health authority and the water undertaker, then the logic of that is that when those bodies do not want fluoridation, fluoridation should not take place. I have sympathy with those hon. Members on the Government Benches who say clearly that fluoridation should not take place in those circumstances. But does the clause say that? Will Conservative Members tell me that I have got the wrong end of the stick and that the Bill is clear?
11.15 pm
I have listened to the Conservative lawyers tonight. That is a terrible combination; to be a lawyer is bad, to be a Tory is terrible, but to be a Tory lawyer is worse. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said that he did

not think that he had made us any the wiser, because he had given a complicated explanation. However, he chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and claimed that all people were very clear in what they said. That did not make sense.
The Tory lawyers do not seem to understand what the clause means. In that case, we should not be putting it into legislation. When I was a Whip on a Committee, a Conservative Member asked the Labour Minister to explain a clause. The Minister did not give a straightforward explanation and the hon. Member, who was courteous and tolerant, asked again, "Will the Minister tell us what the clause means?" There w as no reply. The hon. Member, who was one of the most tolerant Members that I have ever known, then said, "Let me put it this way. If a constituent came to the Minister's surgery on a Saturday morning and asked him what the clause meant, what explanation would the Minister give?" I shall remember the Minister's reply to my dying day. He said, "If a constituent asked me what the clause meant, I would tell him to consult a lawyer." That is not the spirit in which to pass legislation.
If lawyers do not understand this clause, how can we expect people outside to understand it? I withdraw that question; I am being unfair to the people outside. If all the supporters of the clause say that they do not understand it and cannot explain how it hangs together, how can we justify its inclusion in the Bill? It is crackers.
The responsibility lies with those who oppose the legislation. It is not the Government's fault. Their object has been to foist rotten legislation on the nation. They have given way to the health lobby and succumbed to all the arguments of the professional health industry. Those of us who are more interested in freedom than in health have opposed the measure. It is, and has been, our responsibility to get it right. I must say to the hon. Gentlemen opposite that we did not get it right and, because we did not get it right, we really must not be muleish, stubborn, pig-headed, and say, "Ah, the Lords have seen through us, the Lords have exposed our weakness, but because we do not like the legislation we are digging our heels in." We ought to be bigger than that and acknowledge that we got it wrong. Our case was right, our objections were well founded but the amendment that we moved, for which hon. Members accept collective responsibility, was defective and we failed our people. Let us say that tonight instead of trying to insist that this defective amendment should remain.
If it is removed, we will not actually get a different result because the wording of this is not such as to prevent fluoridated water being taken from one area where bodies, perhaps representing the people, have decided that the water can be fluoridated to areas where that is not the case. The wording will not do that. It is very clear that, whether the wording is in or out, water is going to pass from one area to another.
I say this because it does not seem to me that the problem that I raised here as the Bill was passing through this place was tackled in the Lords. The Bill does not include only reservoir water; it is not confined to water which itself is confined in lakes and reservoirs. It was established as the Bill went through the House that if applies equally to flowing water. If water is fluoridated, how on earth can anybody stop its flow? How can this particular piece of legislation do that? Certainly the amendment does not. The amendment that we passed did


not say — perhaps it ought to have said — that water should never be fluoridated where there is a risk that it will pass from an area in which permission has been given to another area.
This amendment should rest in the Bill. The Lords were right to correct all the mistakes that we made. All that we should do tonight is to apologised to the people whiom we represent because the safeguards that we wrote into the legislation were not strong enough, and we ought to have realised that when the Government did not resist them at the time of the debate.

Mr. Bill Walker: You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the Bill passes into law it will affect Scotland as well as England and Wales. You will also be aware that until now the debate has concentrated largely on the problems that will occur in England and Wales when this part of the Bill, were it to be passed, comes into operation. You will, of course, also be aware that the law in Scotland is different from the law in England and Wales, and that the statutory water undertakings in Scotland are quite different from those in England and Wales.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, the lawyers who spoke so eloquently in the debate did not know what the amendment meant or how it would effect water undertakings in England and Wales. I drew attention to the difference in Scotland and that caused interest, but there was little response to the problems that would be caused by the amendment.
In England and Wales the statutory bodies are appointed. In Scotland the water authorities are the regional councils, which are elected. There is an immense difference between an elected and an appointed body.
Many difficulties would arise if the words were taken out of subsection (1), as suggested in the Lords amendment. The relevant words are:
provided it is in the opinion of the statutory water undertaker"—
in Scotland that is the regional authority—
reasonably practicable to do so".
Time has been devoted to discussing what "reasonably practicable" means in England and Wales. It probably means much the same in Scotland, although I am not a lawyer.
The Bill was drafted because a lady in Scotland took the regional authority to court and won her case, much to the astonishment of the authority, because it thought that it had the power to put fluoride in Scotland's water. The Scottish courts decided that it did not have that power and that resulted in an enormous lobby of support for the Bill.
Hon. Members have referred to oninion polls and to asking the electorate to vote on whether certain action should be taken. That means asking people whether they would be prepared to have their water fluoridated and whether they would vote for it.
The area of Scotland which I represent has beautiful highland water, untouched by any of the ghastly things that we put into waters elsewhere. The Tayside regional authority—the water authority—has said that it will not fluoridate the water. That is vital because if the words which we are discussing are deleted the areas outside that covered by the application will be affected. What will be the effect of the amendment if areas outside Tayside

decide to go ahead with fluoridation? I share the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
11.30 pm
Tayside region has voted clearly. Its council has stated that it will not fluoridate our beautiful clear highland water, but what will happen in the kind of situation that occurred this year? People talk about droughts, but we have had the opposite problem. We have had far too much water, and for various reasons water overflows from one authority area to another. That means that fluoridated water could come into Tayside region even though the regional authority is adamant that it will not fluoridate its water.
I am not opposing the amendment. I am seeking clarification. Will the amendment strengthen the hand of the water undertaker—in this case the Tayside regional authority—in saying yea or nay? I think that this is a bad Bill, and an even worse amendment, because I do not understand it, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister can give me that assurance I shall be happier than I was when we last discussed the subsection, before it was amended in another place.
In this House we spend a great deal of time on legislation, but we often miss the obvious. It is obvious to me that there are great difficulties in producing legislation that can be operated properly and effectively when Scotland has different laws and differently constituted undertakers operating differently both by law and in practice. I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure me that the Tayside regional authority will be strengthened by the amendment in taking the decisions that it wishes to take. Whether the decision is for or against fluoridation is not important.
I have sat through these debates from the beginning. and virtually all the arguments have been based on the problems of England and Wales. I do not want an amendment put into statute which solves the problems faced by non-elected statutory bodies in England and Wales if the elected water authorities in Scotland are in any way disadvantaged by it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Scottish water authorities will not be disadvantaged and that the amendment will not affect their ability to operate the subsection as they otherwise might have done?
So far, I have had no explanation at all on that point. I have read the debates on this amendment in the other place and I have not been assured. Doubt and lack of explanation influence one's vote. Although I oppose compulsory fluoridation, I would support an amendment that gave my authority the right to say no as well as yes.

Mr. Terry Davis: I shall leave it to the Minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I should like to comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). He and I strongly disagree about the merits of fluoridation. He, I think, would regard me as part of the health lobby. Having listened carefully to his speech. I conclude that the fog this evening is not restricted to the west midlands.
My hon. Friend and I agree about the Lords amendment—we will both support it if it is pressed to a Division—and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) can hardly describe me as part of the payroll vote. I assume that the Minister will recommend support for the Lords


amendment. My hon. Friend and I agree about something else: it is difficult to refuse to reply to sedentary interventions. Constituents assume that if a Member refuses to reply, he does not have any answer to the interruption. The point is even more valid in regard to an hon. Member refusing to give way to another who wishes to press him on a point. That is what happened today when I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East when he described the poll conducted in Leicestershire. It was a pity that I was unable to make several points about the way in which the sample was derived. The hon. Gentleman's constituents must conclude, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, that he was afraid of the question because he was not confident of the answer.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) also asserted that the majority of people in Britain oppose fluoridation. He, with his usual courtesy, gave way when I wanted to intervene to ask for evidence of that assertion, but he then took shelter in the rules of order. He regarded his assertion as being in order but did not regard providing evidence of that assertion as being in order. I therefore conclude that he, too, does not have the answers to the questions.

Mr. Hayhoe:: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond briefly to the debate.
I want only to re-emphasise that the amendment's purpose is very limited. It removes superfluous and perhaps legally ambiguous words from the Bill. I must reject and repudiate the absurdly exaggerated and emotive comments made by some of my hon. Friends on matters which have been fully debated and fully answered previously in our long discussions on the Bill. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 14.

Division No. 299]
[11.38 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eggar, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Emery, Sir Peter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Golding, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gow, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dobson, Frank
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Norman





Lang, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spencer, Derek


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, John


Mather, Carol
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, John
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Normanton, Tom
Waldegrave, Hon William


Norris, Steven
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Wallace, James


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Watts, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wheeler, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitney, Raymond


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Pike, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander



Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Renton, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert





NOES


Best, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Butterfill, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Ground, Patrick



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hickmet, Richard
Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mr. Bill Walker.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 16, after "so" insert "—(a)"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 2, line 17, at end insert
; or
(b) in connection with the carrying out of any works (including cleaning and maintenance) by any of them.

Amendment (a), in line 1, leave out 'to end of line 13' and insert 'to "without" in line 11'.

Amendment (b), in line 1, at end add 'and insert
provided that they are requested to do so by a resolution of each local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the area affected by the application".'.

Amendment (d), in line 1, at end add
'and insert "provided that it may not increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by them to areas outside that covered by the application.".'.

Mr. Whitney: Clause 1(5) as currently drafted allows a statutory water undertaker to supply fluoridated water on a temporary basis to an area whose health authority has not requested it to deal with an emergency. An emergency is currently defined in clause 1(7). This simply provides a specific statutory power for current practice. However, it was brought to our attention in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) that the Bill should also provide for the current practice whereby fluoridated water must be supplied to a non-requesting area because of routine maintenance, such as cleansing or pump maintenance. As such maintenance is planned and carried out on a regular basis, it cannot fall within the definition of an emergency. This amendment remedies that omission.
I would stress that neither the amendment nor the text of clause 1(6)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Members who are standing at the Bar either withdraw from the Chamber or make less noise?

Mr. Whitney: Neither the amendment nor the existing text of clause 1(6) provides a legal power to fluoridate a normally unfluoridated area, except for the duration of the emergency or the maintenance work. As soon as the emergency or work is over, the supply of non-fluoridated water must be resumed.
I commend the amendment as a small, but useful, addition to the Bill.

Sir John Page: It is again my pleasure to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting amendments which were suggested by me in Committee, where I declared an interest as a director of a water company and as a spokesman for the water industry. Some of the criticisms made by my hon. Friends—mostly hon. and learned Friends—contain an element of slur against the water industry, which is especially responsible, efficient and effective. From the way in which some of my hon. Friends speak, it sounds as though water undertakings would be casual about their responsibility to provide wholesome water to the community, which I believe that they have done efficiently and effectively for more than 100 years. It is obviously right that in an emergency fluoridated water might have to be passed to a non-designated area. It is obviously also sensible, as the Minister said, to make such provision for routine maintenance.
If the Bound Volume of Hansard of the debate were to be given a name, perhaps it should be called "Ivan the Terrible" or "The Worst of Best". Both seem to be appropriate, but an even better name is "As the weary hours of the night go on".

Mr. Lawrence: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendments in my name.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page). If I could take a page out of his leaf, I would try to work a pun into his name. When I was recently in Moscow, I learnt that Ivan the Terrible did not mean Ivan the Terrifying but Ivan the Awesome. Therefore, I hope that from now on people who refer to me as Ivan the Terrible will be in proper awe of my sensible remarks.
I do not attack the water authorities for the way in which they provide, have provided and intend to provide, water, but because they are the motive power behind the Bill, and

the Government fall over themselves backwards to accept any amendment, however well or badly worded. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West told us how the last proviso in clause 1 was added on the back of a menu in the best musical composers' traditions. The Government immediately snapped it up and added it to a Bill which would have become an Act, if the Lords had not decided that it was nonsense.
If the water authorities, specifically the Severn-Trent water authority, had not said to the Government, "Come on. Now that Lord Jauncey has said that this is unlawful, please regularise the position, otherwise we shall have to claim large sums from you" — I do not know their precise argument — the Government, who are usually committed to the freedom and rights of the individual, and who pre-eminently stand through the Conservative party for the right of freedom above all, would not have lent themselves to mass medication and the worst act of collectivism one can consider. The water authorities have insisted that such a Bill be passed to regularise the position, and that is our criticism of them. It is not a slur, but a downright criticism because, but for their activities the Bill would not be being considered and would not shortly reach the statute book, as a result of which many areas which do not have fluoridated water will probably have it.
It is all very well for the water authorities to say, "We are neutral in the matter. We do not particularly want fluoride, but we are under pressure from the health authorities and, therefore, please introduce legislation to make it lawful for us to fluoridate the country. Help us get the health authorities off our backs and have an easy life." If that is one's attitide in this world, one cannot expect praise. The water authorities should not expect praise, and my hon. Friend, who represents them so well in the House, should not be particularly sensitive when we say that they do not require praise, but condemnation.
Again, my objection to the matter is that the amendment expands the effects of the Bill. It extends the opportunity for fluoridation in the nation's water. It does more than this House gave permission for it to do. It extends the power of the fluoridators.
12 midnight
People who have changed their views on this matter keep telling me that the Whips have made concessions. They are not making concessions to those who do not want this substance forced down their throats; they are making concessions to the water authorities and those who want that. It is an expansion of the terms of the Bill. We gave our permission only for the water authorities to fluoridate water in an area where there was not usually fluoride—because it was not wanted—in an emergency. That is good sense. We can imagine an emergency where something goes wrong with a water supply and people are without water to wash or to flush their lavatories.
Given that this rotten Bill will be on the statute book, those who oppose fluoridation on principle and because it is harmful would not object to an exception for an emergency. But this goes further than emergency; it is an open gate through which the unruly horse of the do-gooders—the bureaucrats, those who say, "Never mind freedom, we know better", those who want the health authority off their backs—want to bolt. Their Lordships want to extend it to include:
in connection with the carrying out of any works (including cleaning and maintenance) by any of them.


I have no objection to the words "cleaning and maintenance" because that is obviously good sense. However, I object to authorities being allowed to fluoridate areas where there is no request or permission for or no decision to fluoridate, but simply where the neighbouring authority wants to carry out any works—that is, not just cleaning, maintenance or emergency works.
What does that mean? It means a very wide hole. A water authority may wish to extend its pipes, to put in a new kind of pipe or to develop some high-tech equipment with which it wishes to experiment—all of which may take a considerable time. If one visited a computer unit in my constituency, in one of the largest firms, one would go in one door and see that unit full of computers. But they are not stationary — they are moving out because at another door new computers are moving in. All we would see is computers moving through—bigger ones, wider ones, fatter ones, shorter ones. Modern technology does not allow a computer to stand still for five minutes. I do not know whether our water pipes can or will be computerised, but that is the sort of thing that happens with modern technology. There is always movement and change.
If a water authority decides that it wishes to undertake any work—I repeat, any work—no one can challenge that. In a court a judge would say, "The expression 'any works' is very wide — it is not cleaning works or maintenance works or emergency works, but any works." The authority can fluoridate the water while that work takes place—perhaps for six months or a year. The poor people in the area who voted against fluoridation and persuaded the health and water authorities that they could not have fluoridation are stuck with it because "any works" is what their Lordships permit in their amendment. That would cause harm.
I do not want to bore the House, and no doubt I should be ruled out of order if I tried, but we have spent sufficient time on the passage of the Bill reiterating the well-known harms. Many scientists have said, for example, that this stuff aggravates diabetes, allergic conditions, kidney diseases and thyroid abnormalities and that it has something to do with arthritis, hardening of the arteries and triggering cancer.
On the subject of triggering cancer, perhaps the Minister will report on the latest state of play in the research project that the Medical Research Council is undertaking, at the request of the Department of Health, to identify whether sodium chloride has the ability to induce gene mutations in mouse lymphoma cells.
The Medical Research Council has reported that that project is being carried out in Brighton and that its report will be released later this year. We are now late into the year. If he receives an adverse report, I should like an assurance that the Minister will make it his business to see that fluoridation is stopped while further inquiries are made into whether there is a connection between mouse lymphoma and all sorts of other animal growths whih are caused when reasonably low amounts of fluoridated water pass through their bodies.
This harm is not talked of by a few crackpots. A large number of reputable scientists take this view, and if a handful of experts say it is safe and another handful say it is not safe, what on earth are we doing forcing this substance down people's throats? There is a doubt about it.
The amendment will make it easier to fluoridate more water. Let us not forget the harm that is done to the environment, as the Quebec inquiry discovered, for example to the embryonic development of frogs' eggs and the eggs of trout, preventing them from hatching. That is all part of the harm that fluoridation can cause.

Mr. Golding: The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking so quickly that some hon. Members may have difficulty in following his argument. If he wishes to persuade my hon. Friends to support him, will he explain in full what that inquiry was about?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman seems to want me to delay the termination of my speech. I am reluctant to go into more detail, for two reasons. The first is that other hon. Members are present on a free vote, feeling so strongly in favour of fluoridation that it would be an unkindness to expect them to stay much longer. The second is that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps unaware that I made the point in full in my introductory speech, which occupied four and a half hours when the matter was last before the House. That appears in Hansard, with all the references, and it would be an abuse of the House if I were to take the hon. Gentleman up on his offer, although 1 appreciate that he made it with the best of intentions.

Mr. Golding: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not need to be persuaded of the rightness of his case. I thought that he might care to try to persuade my hon. Friends, who may not have been present to hear his memorable, eloquent contribution in the early hours of the morning some months ago.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is most kind, but it does not seem to matter whether his hon. Friends are here or not; they still do not listen. They enter the Chamber and make the speeches they intended to make, having been unaffected by whatever truths have come at them from these Benches. I appreciate, however, that the job of Opposition Members is to oppose, and they oppose any suggestions of ours on the subject of fluoridation. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here to tell us, but it appears to be part of the Labour party's policy to support fluoridation.

Mr. Golding: The hon. and learned Gentleman is doing my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover a great disservice by saying that. The hon. and learned Gentleman should consult my hon. Friend as to his opinions on this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be accusing me of departing from party policy.

Mr. Lawrence: I withdraw that remark, because it is wrong that an injustice should be done. The Labour party is divided between those who are in favour of fluoridation. and those who are not, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) is of the latter philosophy. I wish that more Labour Members were of that opinion. Some of them have been good enough to join us in the Lobby, which was a wise act, and helped to make up for the fact that hon. Friends have gone into the other Lobby, something about which we can do little.
The harm that has been done by this amendment—giving the opportunity to fluoridate the water— is not just harm about which I am complaining, and about which I have railed on many occasions because it is brought about by taking the opinion of those scientists that one wants to


accept, and rejecting the opinion of those whom one does not want to accept. It is harm that has repeatedly been raised in important councils.
The harm was referred to in the Pittsburg, Texas and Illinois cases, in all of which the judges ruled that fluoridation is unlawful. It has caused West Germany, Greece, Holland, India, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Austria, Belgium, Chile and Denmark to have no fluoridation. Some of these countries, like Switzerland, had fluoridation but then decided to forbid it. Are these countries, and more such as France and Portugal, which has only one experimental plant, depriving their citizens of a health-giving benefit? Is the advice from all their doctors, dentists and politicians all rubbish? Are we, with Northern Ireland and America, the only ones to think that there is no harm? I believe that New Zealand has begun to shut its fluoridation schemes in the past few weeks.
If so many countries, on the advice of their medical people and their freedom-supporting politicians, have decided that there should not be fluoridation, surely there is room for doubt about whether we should be doing it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned New Zealand, and it is important that the House should know what I have heard this evening, that New Zealand is proposing to stop fluoridising the water, and that this is taking place on a regional basis—each authority is looking at the matter. That strikes me as being in sympathy with the amendment. Each local authority should be able to decide for itself. In the light of what is going on in New Zealand — we know that the country is misguided in a number of respects, although in this one it seems to have found some commonsense—is it not appropriate that this measure should be stalled, so that the experience of, and the evidence from, New Zealand can be examined and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This amendment deals with works. The hon. and learned Gentleman is straying into a general argument about fluoridation. I am sure that he will return to the amendments.

Mr. Lawrence: Certainly I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your direction, I shall not pursue my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) which I should like to make. Inevitably society will be harmed if there is further fluoridation. The inclusion of the words "any works" would open the floodgates.
I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would direct that the House should not vote just against the Lords amendment but that it should support the constructive suggestion contained in my amendments: that the words "for maintenance and cleaning" should be retained so that there are three categories of fluoridation where there is no fluoride already in the water. They are emergencies, maintenance and cleaning. However, the House should expunge from the Bill the words "any works" because they are far too wide. I should be grateful if you would consider having a separate vote on those matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has already said that a Division on one of these amendments—(a), (b), or (d)

—would be acceptable. I am not quite clear upon which amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to have the Division. Perhaps he will say in due course upon which amendment he would like there to be a Division.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having selected for debate my amendment (d). At the end of the Lords amendment my amendment would add:
provide that no such works shall continue for a continuous period of more than four weeks unless an application in respect of that other area has been made in accordance with subsection (1).
Its object is self-explanatory. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page), whose interest in water undertakers is well known, is a stalwart defender of their integrity. I hope that he will acquit me of any charge of impugning their integrity, or of imputing dishonourable motives to them. I accept that water undertakers will wish to discharge their duties to the best of their ability. My concern is that by removing a large part of clause 1 the Government are not giving those water undertakers a fair chance to do so. By not providing guidelines there is room for error. This is unfair to water undertakers.
My amendment is necessary because of the way in which the Lords amendment is drafted. This is another case of fluoridation by stealth. Clause 1 provides that areas outside an area which is the subject of an application will, or can, receive fluoride without being in breach of the legislation. Now water authorities will be able to carry out works, including cleaning and maintenance—I do not demur at that; of course it must be necessary for them to carry out such works— and thereby ensure that areas outside the area that is the subject of an application received fluoridated water for an indefinite period even though there will have been no consultation with the people living in tha area. The trouble is that we do not know what the works might be. They might be new works or the extension of pipes to areas outside an area covered by an application made by a health authority under the legislation if it passes into law——

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that, strictly according to the clause, the matter is entirely at the discretion of the undertaker? The clause does not require the works to have any connection directly with the provision of water. If the authority considered it appropriate, it might be the construction of a new headquarters building, something water authorities have been wont to do in the past few years.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every time an hon. Member makes a point, a new interpretation can be placed on the proposed legislation which unfortunately, in its wide-ranging generalisation, is capable of a large number of different interpretations. That must be not only impracticable but undesirable for legislation that has the fiat of the House.
To prevent fluoridation by stealth and to ensure that the essence of the Bill is carried out—in other words, that only those areas which are the subject of an application are fluoridated—ther must be some curtailment on works which could otherwise permanently extend fluoride to areas outside an area covered by an application without an application ever having to be made in respect of those areas. That would mean that any water authority, not for arcane or malicious reasons but simply because it was a


way of providing new water supplies, could find itself in the position of providing fluoridated water to areas outside the area of an application.
There is nothing in the Bill which allows a water authority to require a health authority to make an application to it for the purposes of extending fluoridation. Therefore, there could be continuing fluoridation outside those areas. For that reason, I hope that my amendment will find favour with the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: There are considerable implications in the clause as it is intended to be amended by the Lords amendments under discussion. We are imposing an unfair burden on water authorities. The Government have made it clear throughout the discussion on the Bill that water authorities shall not carry any blame for fluoride being added to the water. One of the central tenets of the Government's arguments in favour of the Bill is that the decision of local health authorities will be the determining factor in deciding whether the water in an area is fluoridated.
I can foresee a problem in that my parliamentary constituency is represented by' two district health authorities, one in Scunthorpe and one in Grimsby, and it is therefore conceivable that the Anglian water authority, which serves the whole of my constituency, could receive an application under the proposed legislation from, let us say, the Scunthorpe water authority to have fluoride added to its water supply. The health authority in Grimsby, which serves part of my constituency, might decide not to have fluoride in its water supply. Therefore, half of my constituents will have fluoride added to their water on the decision of the Scunthorpe health authority, and the other half served by the Grimsby health authority might not have fluoride added to the water supply.
My constituency is an area of about 450 square miles, and if any water works are undertaken in, say, the area around Brigg, or the area around Barton or Immingham, which are right on the boundaries of the two health authorities, it is perfectly conceivable that while those works are being carried out some of my constituents will have fluoride in their water supply for an indefinite period. That will be the effect of the proposed Lords amendment. It is therefore right that we should consider the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best).
Is it not unreasonable for the Government to make provision for such an eventuality, because it is conceivable that one could have a breakdown in water supply on the boundary between two local health authorities which have different views on fluoride in the water supply. We know that often when water works are undertaken they can be of long duration. Whenever one engages in some kind of pipework renewal, one does not know how long the work will take until one actually sets about the work, digging up roads and looking at the state of the pipes. In a situation like that, the area around Brigg, for example, would have to take water which might contain fluoride from the Grimsby health authority, or the area around Immingham might have to take water from the waterworks of the Scunthorpe health authority which might or might not contain fluoride. One can see that there could be cause for grave public concern.
I suppose that some people would say that fluoride in the water supply for just a week may not be harmful. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Burton (Mr. Lawrence) would agree with that. I am perhaps going slightly soft in favour of the Government on this point. One of the arguments which my hon. Friends and I have made about the dangers of fluoride is that we are concerned about the build up over a period of years. If water works are being undertaken for a short time and somebody in a non-fluoridated water area is being asked to accept water from a health authority which has decided to have fluoride in the water supply, it is reasonable to say to him, "Look, this is only for a week, it will not harm you. There is a time limit on it." However, we do not always know in advance how long pipework renovation will take, and that is why I believe that a time limit should be placed on the powers sought by the Government.
12.30 am
We could face fluoridation by stealth. One can imagine a health authority saying to its local population, "You may not be aware of this, but we had to undertake pipework renewal in your area over several months and, under the terms of the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, you have been receiving fluoride in your water supply during that time. We received no complaints and we do not think that it has done you any harm. We treated it as an experiment and on that basis we shall be making an application to fluoridate the water supply." That could happen if a health authority decided to play the game below the belt.
Those who share my view are right to ask the Government to consider the amendments to the Lords amendments. There must be many constituencies where there are two health authorities and one water authority and people might receive fluoride for a short time. We must have a safeguard to ensure that they will be told if they are to receive fluoride for more than four weeks.
We are not nit-picking. Those who worry about fluoridation by stealth perceive a weakness in the Bill. Local health authorities which do not play fair couid misuse the rights given to them under the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have been struck by the debate on this group of amendments, particularly on the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and supported by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) The situation that the latter described is not the only possible one. He referred to the existence of two health authorities and one water undertaking in his constituency. The situation of which I have more experience is one in which there are several water undertakings. There are three or four in my constituency and one health authority. However, one of those undertaking supplies a neighbouring health authority which has long and fiercely resisted the addition of fluoride to the water supply because it believes that it would be a danger to the health of the people that it is-intended to serve. This exasperates the water undertakers because they find that they are supplying water to an area determined on grounds of water supply but which contains two health authorities, and they do not know how to cope with the situation. They find it very irritating and wish that the recalcitrant health authority would comply and simplify their task.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that water undertakers exchange water with each other extensively, according to what is going on in the water cycle, which one has an ample supply of water, which river flows need to be maintained in order to preserve


fisheries and so on. I can foresee a situation such as the hon. Member has described in which the advantage of works being carried out would be seized upon gleefully.
Can the Minister remember a time in his own constituency when water supply works were not being carried out? As I go about my constituency—and there is not much going on in the more deprived regions of the country these days—the only vehicles that I see are those of the county council, and the water authorities. The deeper we go into winter, the more obvious this is. It is partly the result of our crumbling Victorian heritage of water and sewerage systems, but it is a fact that at any one time a water undertaker, whether it be the Northumbrian water authority, the Newcastle and Gateshead water company or the Coquet water board, will be engaged in works which can be described as relevant for the purposes of this Lords amendment.
Unless the Minister can reassure me that this cannot be implied, there can never be a situation in which, by some process of argument, an authority could not contend that it was justified in introducing fluoridation by stealth into an area which had not even had the benefit of a health authority decision. In my constituency, of course, I am further irritated by the fact that, unlike the people in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and of my immediate neighbour, the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I do not even have a democratically elected body making this decision. The decision is made by the health authority. But even that decision could be denied to my constituents in the circumstances described.
The Minister has, therefore, some explaining to do, and I hope that he can say something convincing. I find this Lords amendment wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Whitney: For the reasons that I have given, I commend Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to the House.
My hon. Friends show a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of the water industry. Necessary routine work may not only be cleaning and maintenance: there may be other work such as relining a main or the installation of new pumps. It is most unlikely that it would take more than four weeks to carry out routine work, but we can never rule out that sort of possibility. It may, for example, be necessary to clean out a service reservoir. To stop the fluoridation while that work was done would interrupt the undoubted benefits which children derive from fluoridation.
I, therefore, urge the House to reject amendments (a), (b) and (d).

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 13.

Division No. 300]
[12.40 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Burt, Alistair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butcher, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Peter
Chalker, Mrs Lynda





Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon C.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Newton, Tony


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Cope, John
Norris, Steven


Couchman, James
Ottaway, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dobson, Frank
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Dunn, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Durant, Tony
Pawsey, James


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Pollock, Alexander


Eggar, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rhodes James, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Goodlad, Alastair
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gow, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Ryder, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hanley, Jeremy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Henderson, Barry
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stanley, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stern, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Tracey, Richard


Lamont, Norman
Trippier, David


Lang, Ian
Waddington, David


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lilley, Peter
Walden, George


Lord, Michael
Wallace, James


Lyell, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Watson, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Watts, John


Major, John
Wheeler, John


Malone, Gerald
Whitney, Raymond


Mather, Carol
Wood, Timothy


Maude, Hon Francis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian



Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mellor, David
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)



Moore, John





NOES


Beith, A. J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Best, Keith
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Bruinvels, Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)



Ground, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hickmet, Richard
Mr. John Butterfill and Mr. John Golding.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)



Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 17, at end insert
;or

(b) in connection with the carrying out of any works (including cleaning and maintenance) by any of them."

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, leave out "any works (including".

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 120.

Division No. 301]
[12.50 am


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Skinner, Dennis


Bruinvels, Peter
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Butterfill, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)



Golding, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ground, Patrick
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Keith Best.


Hickmet, Richard



Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Malone, Gerald


Ancram, Michael
Mather, Carol


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Maude, Hon Francis


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mellor, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Moore, John


Bottomley, Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Neubert, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Newton, Tony


Brown, N, (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Nicholls, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Normanton, Tom


Burt, Alistair
Norris, Steven


Butcher, John
Ottaway, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Pollock, Alexander


Couchman. James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Renton, Tim


Dobson, Frank
Rhodes James, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dunn, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Durant, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Eggar, Tim
Ryder, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Squire, Robin


Gow, Ian
Stanley, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Howard, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Waddington, David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jessel, Toby
Walden, George


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wallace, James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Watson, John


Lamont, Norman
Watts, John


Lang, Ian
Wheeler, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Whitney, Raymond


Lilley, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lyell, Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Major, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

1 am

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 7, insert the following new clause—Interpretation etc.—
.— 1) In this Act—

"application" means an application under section 1(1);
"appropriate authority", in relation to a fluoridation scheme which is operated by virtue of section (Continuity of existing fluoridation schemes), means the Regional or District Health Authority to whom the statutory water undertaker concerned are answerable in accordance with the arrangements under which the scheme is operated;
"emergency" means an existing or threatened serious deficiency in the supply of water (whether in quantity or quality) caused by an exceptional lack of rain or by any accident or unforseen circumstances;
"health authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, any District Health Authority (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977); and
(b) in relation to Scotland, any Health Board (within the meaning of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978);
"local authority" means the council of a county or district, the council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and
"statutory water undertaker" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, any water authority or statutory water company within the meaning of the Water Act 1973; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, any water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.
(2) The provisions of this Act apply to the Isles of Scilly as if the Council of the Isles of Scilly were a water authority and as if the Isles were the area of that water authority.

Mr. Hayhoe: These are simply consequential amendments that result from the two Government new clauses relating to the continuity of existing schemes and to publicity and consultation. The two new clauses are in Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which we have still to discuss. I therefore commend these small, technical amendments to the House.

Mr. Lawrence: Consequential and small, technical, amendments they may be, but they reveal an awful deception in the Bill. My amendment (a) has not been accepted for debate and vote, but I consider this issue to be so important that I am driven to ask the House to throw out the definition section in its entirety and to reject Lords amendment No. 7.
The effect would be to make the Government take their Bill away and to re-draft it in the new Session. Although tiresome, that would be far from a tragedy, even from the Government's point of view. Those who will be fluoridated against their will will gain a respite, but that is not my purpose in seeking to reject the amendment.
The definition clause is objectionable because it contains no definition of the word "consult". There is no clear requirement whatsoever in the Bill for anything to be done in the consultation process. "Consult" and "consultation" are words that require definition, otherwise there could be countless legal actions and great expense. The only beneficiaries will be the lawyers, and I know that the lawyers are not very popular with this House.
The undertaking to consult local authorities is the one concession that the Government say they have made to the


anti-fluoridationists. That is very deceptive because it turns out to be no concession at all. It would be a concession if anything was involved in the process of consultation. It would be a concession if, as we had asked, after consultation with the local authorities or the community health councils the water authorities were bound by the effect of that consultation. If, as happens in the west midlands area, nearly every county and district council says that it does not want fluoridation and the water authority, after pressure from the health authority, decides that it does, consultations would have some meaning if what resulted from it was binding. But that suggestion was rejected each time we made it.
We missed winning our case in the House of Lords by only three votes. Two or three of our supporters went home for dinner and forgot to come back; one supporter went into the wrong Lobby; and, unfortunately, one of our strongest supporters died. As a result, the teeth which were generally expected to be put into the Bill were not put in. When the Bill was published, hon. Members seemed to be saying that it was a good idea for the local authorities to control fluoridation. Democratically elected representatives, or, failing that, their nominees on community health councils, could express the wishes of the majority of people in their areas. The understanding was that, as the Bill went through the House, some measure of democratic control would be inserted.
Unfortunately, some people still do not understand—perhaps more understand now than did at the beginning —how important it is not to go ahead in the belief that fluoride is beneficial, when some scientists of repute say that it is not, or that it is completely healthy and safe when some scientists say that it is not. There is a doubt about it. However, there is no doubt about whether there should be democratic control over fluoridation. As the Bill progressed, its opponents were astonished that the Government repeatedly resisted any attempt to provide democratic control before fluoridation is inflicted upon the people who, in vast areas of the country, do not want it or need it, and some of whom consider that it is bad for them in any event.
Therefore, the Bill had no teethx0024;like most people in Britain, who cannot possibly benefit from fluoridation. Yet it is being forced down their throats as though they could.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the amendments, which deal with interpretation. Perhaps he can tell me how he relates what he is saying to the amendments.

Mr. Lawrence: The fault is mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am obviously not expressing myself clearly enough, and I hope to repair that defect in my presentation.
Although the Government refused to give the Bill any teeth, they did tell us that we could have publicity and consultation. Therefore, we must find out what "consultation" means, and my point is that it means nothing. It is a completely ineffectual word.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am still puzzled by what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I see nothing about consultation in the amendments. We are dealing with interpretation. Perhaps he has the wrong set of notes and is talking about a later amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: I think not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am suggesting that amendment No. 7, which redrafts the definitions section, should contain a definition of consultation. If it does not, we should scrap the entire clause—lock, stock and barrel—until the Government come back with a definition of consultation which means something. I hope that I have satisfied you Sir, that my remarks are in order.
Therefore, I have suggested — but because the amendment was not selected I cannot——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again, but he knows very well that it is not in order to discuss amendments that have not been selected.

Mr. Lawrence: It is because the amendment has not been selected that I am asking the House to follow me in rejecting the whole new clause. It must be in order for me to say that I reject it because it does not contain a definition of "consultation". It needs to contain one because the authorities make it clear that if it is not defined—and at present it is not defined in the Bill — the clause is meaningless.
I shall refer to the most important cases, which are not without interest because the matters involve planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. In the Hemel Hempstead case of Fletcher and others v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, the plaintiffs submitted that no proper consultation took place. Discussions took place, representations were made to the Minister, and opinions were expressed, but, as Mr. Justice Morris said
The word 'consultation' is one that is in general use and it is well understood. No useful purpose would be served by formulating words of definition. Nor would it be appropriate to seek to lay down the manner in which consultation must take place. The Act does not proscribe any particular form of consultation. If a complaint is made of failure to consult, it will be for the court to examine the facts and circumstances of the particular case and to decide whether consultation was in fact held.
In other words, if the statute does not define "consultation" or proscribe any particular form of it, the court must decide whether consultation was or was not held. He said
Consultation may often be a somewhat continuous process and the happenings of one meeting may form the background of a later one.
The only guidance there is that if consultation is not defined and specified in a Bill, nothing much happens.
In the Crawley case of Rollo v. Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1947, which concerns the development at the Crawley Three Bridges area, the New Towns Act, 1946 section 1(1) required
If the Minister … is satisfied, after consultation with any local authorities who appear to him to be concerned, that it is expedient in the national interest that any area of land should be developed as a new town by a corporation established under this Act, he may make an order designating that area as the site of the proposed new town.
That is what has brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) to the House tonight.
The plaintiffs took objection to the process called consultation. The local authorities were informed at the meeting of the general nature of the proposal—the area and size of the proposed town, and what the Minister intended to bring about—discussion was invited, some questions were put by the authorities' representatives and answered by the Minister and his assistants, and a minute was prepared and a press notice issued stating what had


happened. A second meeting was held at the local authorities' request to explain the Minister's considerations in arriving at the boundaries of the area. Objections were raised that that was not consultation, and that they had been told what had to happen. They said that they were allowed to express their views, the Minister remained silent and did not discuss anything very much, and that that was not consultation. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene, said that the Minister did not need to complete his consultation with local authorities before he published the draft order. In other words, the Minister could listen to comments, then publish the draft order an further talks could be held thereafter. That is an unsatisfactory form of consultation even though it was written into the Act, which it had not been in the earlier case.
The Master of the Rolls said:
It is to be observed also that under the subsection the ultimate judge of what is or is not in the national interest is the Minister.
1.15 am
That decision was recently echoed in one prominent case. It is not the local authorities or the courts, but the Minister who is responsible to Parliament if he administers the Act badly and reaches conclusions open to criticism as not being in the national interest. That is a ministerial responsibility rather than one upon the shoulders of a local authority. The Master of the Rolls continued:
The point immediately arises whether that interview alone could be a consultation within the meaning of the subsection, having regard to the fact that the Bill had not, at that stage, become an Act.
I do not think that that question requires an answer, nor do I see any necessity for going into the question whether, assuming nothing else had happened, that could be described as a consultation contemplated by the subsection.
Lord Justice Bucknill said:
A certain amount has been said as to what consultation means. In my view, as junior counsel for the Minister said, it means that, on the one side, the Minister must supply sufficient information to the local authority to enable them to tender advice, and, on the other hand, a sufficient opportunity must be given to the local authority to tender that advice.
A rather difficult question arises whether the discussion was a consultation within the meaning of section 1, and he said that it was.
That underlines the necessity, if consultation is to mean anything, for its meaning to be laid down specifically in the Act of Parliament—especially the rather sensible suggestion of Lord Justice Bucknill that it should mean on the one hand that the Minister supplies sufficient information to the local authority to enable it to tender advice, and on the other a sufficient opportunity for it to do so.
If we apply that to a water authority, it must give all the information and allow the other party—the district or county council—the right to tender its advice. As the Bill stands, there is no such requirement. There is no definition in the relevant section; it has been laid down by the House of Lords. In other words, there is no protection. The Government have made no real concessions, they have used the hollow phrase, "You can consult", which is absolutely meaningless. It is deceptive in that it is intended to convey that the Government are conceding something that is of significance or importance. It is a hollow exercise.
I know that a number of parliamentary private secretaries and others will go into the Lobby with the Government in the belief that a concession has been made——

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: It is a conviction.

Mr. Lawrence: It may be a conviction that drives a few such people through the Lobby on a free vote at 1.20 am, but some are misled into thinking that a substantial, important concession has been made. That is quite untrue —there are no concessions. Until there are, it cannot seriously be expected that those of us who think that this is a rotten Bill, but who are nevertheless obliged to support it, should do so without the faintest twinkle of any concession being made.
For that reason, I invite my hon. Friends to vote against amendment No. 7 and oblige the Government to take away the definition section, include a definition of consultation and then return so that something useful will have been achieved.

Mr. Michael Brown: I would not go all the way along the road of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). If the definition of a local authority were not so tightly drawn, the Government's case would be stronger. That tight definition means the council of a county or district, of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London. Under the heading of "local authority", I would have liked to have been included parish and town councils.
When a major item of planning is being undertaken by a district council, it is normal for that council — remembering that a district council often covers an area as large as that covered by a district health authority—to consult the parish or town council. We now have, as a result of the last local government reorganisation, a number of town councils which cover significant populations. It is right, therefore, that such councils should be asked to give a view on the type of issue that we are discussing.
I object to the subsection in its present form, not because the Government are seeking to do anything underhand — they have introduced what they have described as a concession, though I do not want to trespass on a debate we shall have on a later amendment—but because of the definition given to the expression "Focal authority." Town and parish councils could have an important role in offering advice to district health authorities.
There are in my constituency seven or eight town councils, one of which, Immingham, represents a population of about 10,000. I would have thought that the view of a body of that size should be sought in a matter of this kind. Indeed, it would be reprehensible if a major planning decision were taken in the Cleethorpes borough council area without Immingham town council being consulted.
I mention Immingham town council in particular because it covers a large area of the industrial part of my constituency. That contains many chemical factories. and effluent, particularly into water and sewerage pipes, front which occupies much of the concern of that council. If Immingham town council discovers that we have legislated to allow for consultation with local authorities along the lines in this measure, the mayor of Immingham


will write to me asking, "Why has 'local authority' been defined in such a narrow way as not to include this town council?" The mayor and town clerk there will be extremely angry over that.
Immingham town council often finds itself in a peculiar position in relation to Cleethorpes borough council. Although the town council represents a small area of the borough geographically, it represents a large population. Its views often carry great weight with the borough council, and on occasions the borough has planned to take decisions but, after consulting the town council, has reversed its decision. If that can happen with local authorities, surely it is right and proper that it should happen with district health authorities. I do not want to nitpick on the local authority definition, but it is an important point which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will consider.
I notice that the definition does not appear to include any of the Scottish regional councils, and I wonder why that should be. If the Bill were to become an Act, it would apply to Scotland, and I should be interested to know from my hon. Friend why the definition of "local authority" does not include the regional councils in Scotland.

Mr. Hickmet: Amendment No. 4, taken with amendment No. 7, asks the House to delete the definition section in clause 1(7) and to substitute a new subsection which would be the new definition or interpretation section.
I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily, but when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the lack of definition of the word "consult" or "consultation" in the new subsection (7), he made a telling point. My constituents are concerned because they would like to consult the appropriate authority about the contents of the water supply and to question whether it is fluoridated. They have one of the highest levels of nitrates in their water supply. Therefore, consultation about a proposal by a health authority to inject fluoride into the water concerns my constituents. Nobody has ever consulted them about the nitrate level in their water, which is so much higher than that recommended by the European Commission. They already have experience of the lack of consultation before additives are artificially injected into the water.
If the new subsection is to mean anything, and is to provide any protection to people who find themselves in the position of my constituents, some definition of "consultation" must be set out and defined. The amendment says:
the health authority shall consult
about their proposals.
With whom is it to consult? Is it to be with the local authority? What form will the consultation take? Is it to inform the local authority of the proposal when it was the body that took the decision? Suppose the local authority shows opposition to the consultative process. It matters not.
If the word "consultation" were to be defined, it would be open to those aggrieved by the consultative process to say that consultations had been held with the district health authority but that they were a waste of time because the district health authority had allowed the statutory water undertaker to put fluoride into the water. If the word

"consultation" were included in the definition section, those who are concerned about the addition of fluoride to the water would be armed with a legal redress. It may be —my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will, I hope, assist me here—that the matter could go to the Divisional court. A district health authority proposal which ignored the consultative process might be the subject of judicial review. It would be the only weapon that an individual would have with which to fight district health authorities and local authorities.
1.30 am
District health authorities will consult only the local authorities. The district health authority in my constituency is served by hard-working and worthy people, but most of my constituents do not know who they are. The definition section does no define the word "proposal". Subsection (2) of the new clause refers to a period of six months before the implementation of a proposal by a district health authority. If the word "proposal" is not defined, a district health authority could make a decision which it would ask the statutory water undertaker to implement. That decision could disregard entirely the consultative process.
If the words "consultation" and "proposal" are not defined, the new clause could be construed as a sop, because my constituents, and others, would be provided with no redress. My constituents would be most anxious to participate in the consultative process because the level of nitrates in the water is the highest in the country. It is in breach of all of the European Commission recommendations. Therefore, the addition of fluoride would cause grave concern. However, it appears that the Government do not care. If they did, the word "consultation" would be included in the definition section. Let the Government take the definition section, apply their minds to the concessions which they made in another place and define what they mean. If as a result the Bill should be delayed, the Government would have brought that on themselves.

Mr. Hayoe: My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred to the definition of "local authority" and particularly to the position of parish and town councils. If they feel strongly about fluoridation, they will be able to make representations to the health authority in response to the publication of proposals in the local press. He also referred to the fact that there was no definition of "local authority" for Scotland. Such a provision is not needed for Scotland as the decision there will rest with water authorities which are the elected regional and island councils.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) spoke at some length about consultation. I imagine that they made their speeches on the basis that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 7 would be selected. It was not. Nevertheless, they made their speeches.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 12.

Division No 302]
[1.36 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Ancram, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th' E)






Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Malone, Gerald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mather, Carol


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Maude, Hon Francis


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bottomley, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Mellor, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Moore, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Burt, Alistair
Moynihan, Hon C.


Butcher, John
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholls, Patrick


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Normanton, Tom


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Norris, Steven


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Ottaway, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Cope, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Couchman, James
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Pawsey, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Pollock, Alexander


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eggar, Tim
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gow, Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gregory, Conal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Squire, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Stanley, John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Stern, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howard, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Tracey, Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Trippier, David


Jessel, Toby
Waddington, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lamont, Norman
Walden, George


Lang, Ian
Wallace, James


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lyell, Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Major, John





NOES


Beith, A. J.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Best, Keith
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Golding, John



Ground, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hickmet, Richard
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. Michael Brown.


Holt, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause

CONTINUITY OF EXISTING FLUORIDATION SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 5, after clause 2, insert the following new clause—
. (1) Where, in pursuance of arrangements entered into by a statutory water undertaker before 20th December 1984—


(a) a scheme for increasing the fluoride content of water supplied by the undertaker in any part of England and Wales was in operation immediately before that date; or
(b) work had been begun by the undertaker, before that date, for the purpose of enabling such a scheme to be brought into operation;
the undertaker may, while the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied, operate the scheme.
(2) The conditions are that the arrangements under which the scheme operates require—

(a) fluoridation to be effected only by the addition of one or more of the compounds of fluorine mentioned ',in section 1(4) of this Act; and
(b) the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to consumers to be maintained, so far as is reasonably practicable, at one milligram per litre.
(3) Where a statutory water undertaker is operating a fluoridation scheme by virtue of this section—

(a) subsection (6) of section 1 of this Act shall apply in relation to the scheme as it applies in relation to arty scheme operated in exercise of the power conferred by that section;
(b) the scheme shall cease to have effect upon the appropriate authority giving to the undertaker reasonable notice of the authority's desire to terminate it; and
(c) the arrangements under which the scheme is operated may be varied to take account of any amendment of section 1(4) of this Act made under section 2."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out '20th December 1984' and insert '29th June 1983'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments to the proposed Lords amendment: (b), in line 3, leave out '20th December 1984' and insert '6th December 1983'.

(c), in line 6, leave out from 'date' to end of line 9.

(d), in line 26, leave out
`cease to have effect upon the appropriate authority giving to the undertaker reasonable notice'
and insert
'cease operation immediately upon the undertaker receiving in writing notice from the appropriate authority'.

Mr. Lawrence: The new clause was introduced by the Government to buy off—once again—the anxieties of the water authorities, which were worried that if they were to give people an opportunity to decide whether they should have fluoridation processes foisted upon them that would cost money. They asked the Government to exempt schemes that had already begun. The Government, who are in enough trouble with water authorities, and under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page), have expanded the evil of the Bill—once again—against the interests of the consumers and the wishes of the House.
The new clause provides that if a scheme is in existence before the Bill becomes law, the people will have no right to express their view. Many will think that that is disgraceful. Why should those who are opposed to fluoridation, but have already had to suffer it, although it was unlawful, as the judge in the Court of Session in Scotland found—as he was interpreting precisely the same law as that which applied in the rest of the United Kingdom fluoridation must have been unlawful in the rest of the United Kingdom — be further deprived of the concession that is claimed to have been given in the Bill? Why will they not have the right to have the fact that


fluoridation is to be foisted on them publicised and not have the right to make their views known? Where is the justice in making those who are already at a disadvantage suffer even further disadvantage?
I ask the House to vote against the Lords amendment, and, if we are not successful, at least to vote for my amendments, the purposes of which, I will now enlighten the House, are as follows.
The date of 20 December 1984, which is laid down as the magic date, after which there shall be publicity and consultation if the fluoridation process has begun, but before which there need not be, is the date on which this Bill was introduced. After all, we are not making some wonderful concession to the British people. We are giving them the right to decide whether to have this substance, this corrosive poison—drip, drip, drip—flushed down their throats for the rest of their lives.
I ask the House to say that the right to have the issue publicised and the right to be consulted should not begin long after everyone knew that it was against the law. That is unfair to all the consumers, it puts a premium on wrong doing and it makes a further mockery of consultation. There is no reason, and never was, for thinking that it was lawful to fluoridate the water. The making of water wholesome obviously had nothing to do with mass medication. The only reason why it was allowed to continue was that the anti-fluoridation people simply did not have the money to test the matter in court. When it was eventually tested, it was found to be what everyone knew it to be—unlawful.
This may be considered too harsh a judgment, but everybody must have known that it was unlawful after Lord Jauncey's judgment on 29 June, so in the amendment I recommend that the House accepts that the right to have the matter publicised, and the right to consult, should extend to any situation where the fluoridation process began before, not after Lord Jauncey made his judgment. I suppose that if one wants to be kind to the water authorities one could say that they did not know positively until this ruling.
People may well have been labouring under the misapprehension that if it was unlawful in Scotland it was not unlawful in England, but they could no longer take this view after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement on 6 December 1983. I have therefore taken 6 December 1983 as the second alternative date, the third alternative stage at which this House, depending on whether it is in a benign mood, shall give the people of this country a greater right to have publicity and to be consulted before they have this substance flushed down their throats, merely because the poor water authorities have already begun spending money on the process. If they have spent money on it, knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful, why should the public suffer?
The fourth amendment is intended to firm up a particularly flabby piece of deception—for that is what it is—in this whole pretence that the public are deriving some benefit from publicity and consultation.
The flabby paragraph states:
the scheme shall cease to have effect upon the appropriate authority giving to the undertaker reasonable notice of the authority's desire to terminate it".

That is no restriction. Notice can be given at some time, and some time thereafter the fluoridators might have to stop fluoridating. The provision is vague and wide. Fluoridating could continue for a few more months, or even for a few more years. A few more people could die or develop ailments which scientists of international repute have said are the result of fluoridation.
That is not on. It should not be acceptable to a responsible House of Commons. That is why I suggest that the House firms up that provision and states that the operation should cease immediately the water undertaker receives notice in writing from the appropriate authority. As soon as the authority receives the letter saying that fluoridation must stop, it must stop. In this way, we could not only achieve freedom, but could stop the pain and suffering which comes long after the teeth are all gone.
I do not want to detain the House a moment longer than is necessary, but it is clear that the water authorities should not deprive the people of the right to be consulted just because they have begun to operate their plans, knowing them to be unlawful. The right not to have water fluoridated should begin from the moment that the undertaker serves notice.

Mr. Whitney: I urge the House to reject the amendments to the Lords amendment. The purpose of the Bill is to provide specific powers for fluoridation. It would make no sense to approve the two amendments relating to the dates which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) proposes. It would not make sense to impose a burden on health and water authorities to renegotiate existing schemes which are not currently illegal and whose legality can be in no doubt under the terms of the Bill. It will remain open both to health and water authorities to reconsider existing schemes in accordance with contractural arrangements.
One of my hon. and learned Friend's amendments would restrict the definition of an existing scheme to one which was in operation in December 1984 rather than to one which is in operation or on which work has been done with a view to operating a scheme. The amendment is against the spirit of the Bill and should be rejected.
Amendment (d) would impose on water authorities a requirement to cease fluoridating water immediately on receipt of written notice from a health authority. The boundaries of water authorities and health authorities are by no means coterminous. Under the amendment the fluoridation of several health authority areas might have to cease because one authority wished to terminate its scheme, at least until such time as other arrangements could be made.
2 am
I recognise the concern of some hon. Members that the urgent termination of all schemes might at some stage be required, but subsection (6) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment No. 6 provides the most effective means of dealing with that highly unlikely event as it provides power for the Secretary of State to waive consultation requirements for terminating schemes. The amendment now under consideration would therefore not be required in that event and would apply only if one health authority wished to terminate fluoridation on policy grounds. I do not believe that the wishes of other health authorities should be overridden buy such a change, and I urge the House to resist the amendment.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House long, but my name appears as a supporter of the amendments introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I wish to draw attention to amendment (d). It gives me no pleasure to keep Ministers out of their beds, but my colleagues and I realise that in doing so we are salving the consciences of those who feel duty bound to support the Government today, having told their constituents in the past that they opposed mass medication. Now they will at least be able to tell their constituents that some of their colleagues were able to hold the banner aloft.
The most important point in relation to amendment (d) is that it is the duty of Parliament to be specific in the way in which it draws up legislation. Increasingly, legislation enacted by Parliament has needed to be tested in the courts to such an extent that in many respects the courts have become the legislators. That is absolutely wrong. We should ensure that we draft the laws of the land in such a way that ordinary men and women can understand them or, if that is not possible, so that the courts understand them clearly and do not have to act as substitutes for us as legislators.
In my view, the Lords amendment is unsatisfactory because there is no definition of "reasonable notice". At the very least, those who would impose this mass medication on our people should make it possible for a health authority which decides that it is undesirable to have this substance artificially introduced into the water supply and that it should be removed to have that change of heart carried out at the earliest possible moment. I therefore strongly commend the amendment so ably introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton because it does not require the courts to interpret the matter but provides clear wording. It uses the word "immediately", and there can be no doubt about what that means.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister about boundaries not being coterminous. That is a very fair point, but I hope that he will agree that it is also fair to point out that if a regional authority currently providing mass medication decides that it has seen the light it will be because compelling evidence has been presented to it that the substance constitutes a danger to the population. It is surely right and proper that the benefit of that should be given to all the health authorities covered by the statutory undertaker and that it should be the prerogative of the one who would decide, "Nay, we shall not have this substance added to the water" to have the constitution of the water supply immediately decided. Thereafter, of course, it will be open to other health authorities to argue the case if they wish to have the poison reintroduced into the water supply.
These are fundamental matters of principle. It would be wholly wrong to give an easy passage to a measure which I know many of my hon. Friends oppose utterly. I look forward to them all buying me a drink afterwards for my having held the banner high on their behalf.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is the most important of the Lords amendments. That fact is reflected by the increased attendance in the House. It is a credit to many hon. Members that they have come into the Chamber so late.
Lords amendment No. 5 gives soft passage to what Lord Jauncey ruled illegal. The health authority was in breach of the law, so the Government introduced

legislation in response to Lord Jauncey's judgment. The Lords amendment breaches constitutional practice by which we take notice of legal judgments. The parliamentary process of law-making is acknowledged to be entirely separate from the judicial process. It is a dangerous procedent for the Government to promote legislation simply because they do not like a judgment.
I regret that the Bill has been introduced as it is designed to bail out health authorities that made decisions that were ruled illegal. We are saying that every time the Government or one of their agencies is on the wrong side of the law, the Government will rush to the House, give us a free vote—of which we are taking advantage—but try to persuade us to bail them out. That is not right. If we are to give the Government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our attitude about their proposals for consultation for possible future schemes, why should we not give the same opportunity for a rethink on consultation with people who have had the misfortune to have fluoride added to their water before it was rendered illegal? Why should they not have the opportunity of some form of consultation? They had the misfortune to live in an area where the local health authority introduced fluoride into the public water supply in the absence of public consultation and it is being sought to give them carte blanche to continue that activity without consulting the local people, who have had to suffer the misfortune of an act of illegality. It is only right that an amendment should be introduced to rectify the deficiencies of the Lords amendment.
It is unfortunate that when the Question is put many of my hon. Friends will forget that they put their signature to various early-day motions and will support the Government. That applies to some of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. I have copies of the letters that they wrote to their constituents on this matter. I exclude my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who has always taken an honourable and strict view of the issue, but I cannot exclude his predecessor.
I know that many of my hon. Friends will support the Government with a heavy heart when the Division takes place. I understand why that is so, but they have not changed their minds overnight. It has not suddenly dawned on them that fluoridation is right. Surely they have a duty to think back to their attitude before the judgment of Lord Jauncey. The view that some of my hon. Friends and I are expressing is the view that many others were expressing. The House will be setting a dangerous precedent by legalising an illegality.

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to the Lords amendment.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (d) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 26, leave out
'cease to have effect upon the appropriate authority giving to the undertaker reasonable notice'
and insert
'cease operation immediately upon the undertaker receiving in writing notice from the appropriate authority'. — [Mr. Lawrence.]

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 116.

Division No. 303]
[2.13 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Best, Keith
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Stern, Michael


Golding, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Ground, Patrick



Hickmet, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Holt, Richard
Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mr. Michael Brown.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Ancram, Michael
Major, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Malone, Gerald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Mather, Carol


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Maude, Hon Francis


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mellor, David


Bottomley, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Moore, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Newton, Tony


Butcher, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Normanton, Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Norris, Steven


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Colvin, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cope, John
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Couchman, James
Pattie, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pawsey, James


Dobson, Frank
Pollock, Alexander


Dorrell, Stephen
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Renton, Tim


Dunn, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eggar, Tim
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Emery, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gregory, Conal
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Squire, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Stanley, John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Stern, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howard, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Tracey, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Trippier, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Waddington, David


Jessel, Toby
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Walden, George


King, Rt Hon Tom
Wallace, James


Lamond, James
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lang, Ian
Watts, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Whitney, Raymond


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wood, Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)



Lord, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Nicholas
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tony Durant.


MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

New Clause

PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION

Lords amendment: No. 6, insert the following new clause:
— (1) This section applies where a health authority propose—

(a) to make or withdraw an application; or
(b) to terminate a scheme which may be operated by virtue of section 3 of this Act (a "preserved scheme").
(2) At least three months before implementing their proposal, the health authority shall—

(a) publish details of the proposal in one or more newspapers circulating within the area affected by the proposal: and
(b) in the case of an authority in England and Wales, give notice of the proposal to every local authority whose area falls wholly or partly within the area affected by the proposal.
(3) Before implementing the proposal the health authority shall consult each of the local authorities (if any) to whom they are required by subsection (2)(b) above to give notice of the proposal.
(4) The health authority shall, not earlier than seven days after publishing details of the proposal in the manner required by subsection (2)(a) above, republish them in that manner.
(5) Where a health authority have complied with this section in relation to the proposal they shall, in determining whether or not to proceed, have such regard as they consider appropriate—

(a) to any representations which have been made to them with respect to it; and
(b) to any consultations held under subsection (3) above.
(6) The Secretary of State may direct that this section shall not apply in relation to any proposal of a health authority to withdraw an application or to terminate a preserved scheme. 
(7) Where, at any meeting of a health authority, consideration is given to the question whether the authority should make or withdraw an application or terminate a preserved scheme, section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (which would have allowed the authority to exclude the public from the meeting in certain circumstances) shall not apply to any proceedings on that question.

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in subsection (2), leave out 'three months' and insert 'six months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the Lords amendment:

In subsection (2)(a), leave out 'one or more newspapers' and insert
'each newspaper registered at the Post Office as a newspaper'.

In subsection (2)(b), after 'authority', insert 'and Community Health Council'.

Leave out subsection (5).

In subsection (5), leave out 'as they consider appropriate'.

In subsection (5), leave out 'they consider appropriate' and insert
'is reasonable in all the circumstances'.

In subsection (5), leave out
'have such regard as they consider appropriate'
and insert
'give effect to the clearly expressed majority of opinion, if any, arising from regard'.

Leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Lawrence: The amendment goes to the root of the question whether the consultation process has any meaning, and what is meant by "publicity".
I am afraid that neither the water authorities nor the Government want to publicise fluoridation schemes because they know that the people do not want them, there


will be a reaction, discussion and objections, hon. Members will receive letters about it, Colonel Blunt will write, and that that hassle can he avoided if there is no publicity. Pretence that publicity is an issue towards which the Government, water authorities and health authorities are strongly inclined is bogus.
Clearly publicity is not wanted because the authorities wish to go ahead with fluoridation whatever the views of the people. A couple of years ago the National Anti-fluoridation Campaign commissioned the British Market Research Bureau Limited to carry out a public opinion poll. To the question, "Do you think people should be allowed to choose whether or not they and their children will have more fluoride in the water they drink?" sixty-seven per cent. said "Yes", 22 per cent. said "No", and 11 per cent. said "Don't know". That is as clear as a public opinion poll can be. The overwhelming majority do not want fluoride in their water; they want to choose.
When the Government, water authorities or health authorities are faced with such a statistic, they do not want to publicise that that is what most of the public is thinking. They want the antithesis of publicity. That is why the contents of the Bill are a pretence at publicity, and why I have tabled the amendment.
It is no good if the time of publicity is so short that nobody can object. In July and August, in particular, people go on holiday, and if there are only three months for the publicity to take effect we know what will happen during those months—the same as happened when the closure of our grammar schools was publicised. Publicity will be given so late that meetings cannot be organised in time to lobby water authorities. We have seen it all before. It is old hat. The shorter the period for publicity, the less hassle.
To protect the interests of those who do not want this evil substance to be repeatedly flushed down their throats, the Government, if they are genuine about the need for publicity, will give a reasonable period for that publicity. Therefore, the amendment extends the period from three to six months. That seems reasonable and sensible, and I am sure it will have the support of my colleagues.
The next feeble requirement regarding publicity is that one or more newpapers should carry the advertisement. That looks good if one does not know what it means. The Government can get away with advertising in a newspaper that no one reads because the circulation is so small. A newspaper is not defined and it need not be any number of newspapers so that everyone in the area can see it. Only the minimum number of people need be given the opportunity to see the publicity. That is not good enough.
If publicity means what the Government should mean, people should know in advance whether there are proposals to fluoridate. Therefore, advertisements should be circulated in every newspaper operating in an area. If that is too wide a definition, I suggest that it should be circulated in each newspaper registered at the post office. That would be a bona fide newspaper — one which people buy or which people receive in ever larger numbers as a give-away. Every proper newspaper should carry publicity of the proposals. That is what the people expect. They do not expect the advertisement to be hidden in a newspaper with the least possible circulation—a pokey advertisement on a page that no one reads.
The advertisement should be published not only in the local authority area, but in the whole of the area of the community health council. That might mean publicity in

a few more newspapers, but if the object of the exercise is as the Government pretend, they should prove to he House that they mean what they say. There is no reason why such publicity should not be given.
The integrity of the Government is at stake. They boast that plans will be well publicised and that they will not sneak up secretly when people are not watching. They say that the opportunity will be given to consult and object. That must mean that the maximum number of responsible, acceptable and respectable newspapers in a certain area will publicise the plans in sufficient time to allow representations to be made.
Secondly, there is the question of consultation. I shall not repeat the earlier debate, although there is a great deal to be said. In essence, the proposals for consultation are absolutely meaningless. They are hollow and have no effect. The Lords amendment has no teeth. If there is no need to act upon the views of the people, that is undemocratic. Water authorities do not have to act on the result of the consultation because the new clause provides:
Where a health authority have complied with this section in relation to the proposal they shall, in determining whether or not to proceed, have such regard as they consider appropriate—

(a) to any representations which have been made.….
(b) to any consultations which have been held."
Has there ever been a more feeble provision in any Bill requiring action by an authority respecting the wishes of a democracy? It is hopeless, a pretence and shallow. It is conning the people into believing that there will be some great protection as a result of the Bill. It cons hon. Members. In the early stages of the Bill they asked for the right to be consulted, and the Government said, "Do not bother to read the Bill; we will introduce a consulting measure and make a great concession to the anti-fluoridators." To say,
in determining whether or not to proceed, have such regard as they consider appropriate
is a pitiful form of words, apart from being a split infinitive. This is the third gross grammatical error in the Bill. It shows that the measure has not been properly examined. It is a bit of rubbish, a pretence at regularising the position with talk of concessions on publicity and consultation. Something should be done because the phrase "as they consider appropriate" means nothing. It is zero, nil, zilch. It means "We are the bosses. We tell you. That is what you will have."
To strengthen the provision and give it some teeth—if only false teeth — I suggest that we remove the subjective test "as they consider appropriate" and substitute the objective test,
is reasonable in all the circumstances.
The provision would then read:
Where a health authority have complied with this section in relation to the proposal they shall, in determining whether or not to proceed, have such regard as is reasonable in all the circumstances … to any representations which have been. made".
That would not solve the problem, but it would remove the deception from the clause because it would provide an obligation which could be tested in the courts. The phrase
reasonable in all the circumstances
is a well known legal test. A court could be asked whether the objections were substantial enough. If, as in the west midlands area, practically every county council, district council, some community health councils and nearly all parish councils say that they do not want it, if public


opinion polls such as the Leicestershire one say no, and if there are positive expressions of opinion objecting, all of that can be tested.
A petition has reached me today from the people of Winchester to the Winchester health authority. I have not had an opportunity to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Browne), who supports us in this matter, but the petition contains more than 1,000 signatures I now hand it to the Minister, who I trust will respond appropriately. Over 1,000 people in Winchester say it they do not want this law. We should pay attention to what the people want. While the clause remains subjective, using the words "as they consider appropriate," it is a sham.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. and learned Gentleman has really answered my question. I wondered whether there was a judicial interpretation of the phrase that he seeks to substitute and whether the body concerned, if it was faced with the volume of protest that he suggests exists in the west midlands, would have discretion to take a decision against that volume of protest.

Mr. Lawrence: I am afraid so. We have tried throughout the proceedings on the Bill to get the Government to accept that if a district, community or community health council said that it did not want fluoridisation, then it should not have it. Failing that, we are, by such amendments as this, saying that the test should be one of reasonableness. One could go to the courts and say that a decision is unreasonable. My phraseology—that the provision should be reasonable in all the circumstances—is one from which the aggrieved people of Winchester, for example, could say that the provision of the Act says:
Where a health authority have complied with this section … they shall, in determining whether or not to proceed, have such regard as is reasonable in all the circumstances
and the court could rule. At least they would have something that is not a pretence to sustain them.
The amendment means, for example, that it would not be reasonable to fluoridate where every local authority, the majority of local authorities, or even a significant number of the local authorities were against it. It would not be reasonable to fluoridate where the costs would be great, where the fluoride output from the factories was so high that people's intake of fluoride was great anyway, or in any area where the incidence of dental caries is particularly low. The British people would understand those tests of reasonableness, and I ask the House to support them tonight by voting for my amendment.

Mr. Best: I welcome the insertion of a consultation clause into the Bill, and I congratulate the Government on having inserted it. It does not go far enough, because it still does not give expression to the individual will or to the majority of opinion clearly expressed in a particular area. Nevertheless, it is better to have some consultation than to have none, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will accept my congratulations to the Government.
However, there is no need for consultation in many, if not all, areas that receive artificially fluoridated water. We know the clearly expressed opinion of the people living in those areas. Every form of survey that has been conducted,

some more efficacious than others I accept. shows loud and clear the message that people do not want fluoride added artificially to their water supply.
In my constituency, not only is the local authority against fluoridation, although it would be consulted under this provision, — we know the answer there — but the community health council. Despite that, fluoridation continues on Ynys Môn. How would the Government get through their business if they said on the Whip list, or to the pay-roll vote, that such Members could vote "as they consider appropriate". I suspect that it would not be regarded as a particularly effective way of getting Government business through the House. However. through the Lords amendment, there will be a requirement that the health authority should do no more than have regard to representations "as they consider appropriate." That is why I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having selected my amendments. It ought not to be the health authority which has to pay regard. as it considers appropriate, to expressions of opinion. The individual consumer ought to be asked whether he or she considers it appropriate to have to drink fluoridated water.
2.45 am
It has already been said that if public opinion is overwhelmingly against fluoridation a health authority will bow to that expression of opinion. That is a forlorn hope. Views against fluoridation have been clearly expressed in areas where the water is fluoridated, yet fluoridation continues. Gwynedd health authority continues to fluoridate Anglesey's water supplies, yet every opinion poll and every locally elected body is against it. That shows how much health authorities disregard public opinion. Even if provision were to be made for consultation, I suspect that health authorities would continue to disregard publicly expressed views.
One of my amendments therefore deletes the words "as they consider appropriate". Another amendment seeks to delete the words
have such regard as they consider appropriate
and to insert
give effect to the clearly expressed majority of opinion, if any, arising from regard
to those representations. That might have some effect. If a health authority were required to act upon a view that had been clearly expressed by the people in its area, consultation might work, but there is a lacuna in the clause which causes me grave concern. As drafted, it would enable consultation to take place when a new scheme is proposed and also when a health authority proposes to terminate a scheme. However, no provision is made for consultation in those areas which are already receiving artificially fluoridated water. Those areas which are not fluoridated will benefit from the consultation process, as will those areas where the health authority seeks to terminate fluoridation, but that is small cheer for those areas whose water supplies are fluoridated. They will continue to be fluoridated. They will not be consulted.

Mr. David Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend suggest what form of consultation there should be in those areas which are naturally highly fluoridated? Those who live in areas where the water supply is naturally highly fluoridated may not wish to receive it. Surely they, too, ought to be consulted about whether or not the fluoride that occurs naturally in their water supply should be reduced.

Mr. Best: There is little substance in my hon. Friend's point. One can do little about what occurs naturally. We are debating the artificial introduction of fluoride into the water supply and we are considering whether the artificial fluoridation of that supply should continue.

Mr. David Atkinson: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that it is dangerous for those receiving water which is artificially fluoridated, he must also be saying that it is dangerous for those receiving water which is naturally fluoridated. Surely, therefore, he would wish the same provision to apply to those areas.

Mr. Best: No. We are debating amendments to a Bill which will give power to health authorities to introduce a noxious substance into the water supply — [Interruption]. It is a poison. If noxious substance is not an adequate description, perhaps another can be found. We are debating whether fluoride should be introduced into water supplies which do not have the fluoride poison in them and whether people should have a say on that.
The consultation clause enables people to have a say, but it gives no consolation to my constituents or to the people in other areas which already have fluoride added artificially to the water supplies. Consultation with them will not be required after the passage of this Bill into law. That is a serious matter which is made more serious by the fact that this is a clause de novo. Consultation has not been required of health authorities in the past when they applied to a statutory water undertaker to introduce fluoride.
People who already receive fluoride under existing schemes will never have had the opportunity of consultation and they will not be offered a facility for consultation under the Bill. I like to think charitably that that was an oversight by the Government. I believe the Government were exercising good will in introducing a consultation clause. Therefore, it is an oversight that an opportunity for consultation will not be given to people who already have fluoride added artificially to the water supply.
I want my constituents to have the right under the Bill to say whether they want fluoridation to continue and for the health authority to have regard to their wishes. Whether they have regard to it as they consider appropriate is a matter for debate. In any event, surely my constituents must have the right to express their view in such a way that it will be taken note of, if nothing more. At present there is no facility for that.
Subsection (6) of the proposed new clause says:
The Secretary of State may direct that this section shall not apply in relation to any proposal of a health authority to withdraw an application or to terminate a preserved scheme.
If I were a pro-fluoridationist I would be upset about that, because it does not give people the right to say that they want to keep fluoridation. Under that provision the Secretary of State will be able to say, "Do away with consultation." If a health authority proposes that fluoride should be removed from the water supply, the pro-fluoridation lobby may have no say. I do not know whether the Government introduced that provision in an overzealous manner to try to buy off the anti-fluoride vote, but, if I were in favour of mass medication by means of fluoridation, I would be upset at the inclusion of that provision in legislation.
Consultation is a good concept but it is meaningless unless it has some bite. The consultation proposed in the Bill, sadly, has no bite, but even more seriously it has no

relevance to people like my constituents, who already labour under artificial fluoridation and have clearly expressed their opposition to it at every opportunity given to them. Under the Bill they will still have no right to be consulted.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) for his welcome to the clause covered by Lords amendment No. 6. I contrast his kindly comment, although I understand that he would like the clause to go rather further, with the rather sour comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
Before commenting on some of the amendments, I should say that the new clause results from Government commitments made on Report by my predecessor and the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that the Bill should place upon health authorities and boards a statutory obligation to undertake general public consultation before deciding to apply to a statutory water undertaker for fluoridation, and that the Bill should require health authorities to discuss these matters in public.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was unduly pessimistic, and in much of his comment discounted many of the public bodies concerned in this process. His amendment (c) suggests that the consultation period should be extended from three to six months That is rather unreasonable. Three months is sufficient to carry out a reasonable consultation process. At times, we have managed to hold general elections within three weeks, and certainly more normally within six weeks. This is allowing double that time.
My hon. and learned Friend also suggested that the information should be given in each newspaper registered at the Post Office as a newspaper. That would extend the field in a most remarkable fashion, and it would mean that one would have to advertise fluoridation proposals in papers like The Sporting Life and various religious newspapers. That is obviously absurd and, given the public interest in matters of this kind and the various pressure groups, these proposals will not be carried through in the still of the night with no one knowing. They will be the subject of considerable public debate, and it is right and proper that should be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn suggested that the words, "as they consider appropriate" should be deleted from subsection (5) of the new clause. If he reads it carefully, he will see that that would render the new clause meaningless, and the state that his amendment would leave it in would be even worse, by his own judgment, than it is at the moment. The new clause carries through the commitments given by my predecessor and our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at that time, and I commend it to the House. I hope that the House will resist the various amendments to the proposed Lords amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (h) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 23, leave out 'they consider appropriate' and insert
'is reasonable in all the circumstances'.—[Mr. Lawrence.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 109.

Division No. 304]
[2.59 am


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Skinner, Dennis


Best, Keith
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Wallace, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)



Ground, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mr. John Golding and Mr. Ivan Lawrence.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Major, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Malone, Gerald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mather, Carol


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Maude, Hon Francis


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bottomley, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Mellor, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Moore, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Burt, Alistair
Newton, Tony


Butcher, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Normanton, Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Norris, Steven


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Colvin, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cope, John
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Couchman, James
Pawsey, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Pollock, Alexander


Dobson, Frank
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Renton, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Dunn, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Eggar, Tim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ryder, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gow, Ian
Squire, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Stanley, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Henderson, Barry
Tracey, Richard


Howard, Michael
Waddington, David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Walden, George


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Jessel, Toby
Watts, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Wood, Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lang, Ian



Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)



Lord, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a brief announcement about the remaining business for today. The Government intend to proceed with the remaining stages of the Weights and Measures Bill [Lords]. Following discussions with the usual channels, we have decided not to proceed with the remaining stages of the Housing Bill [Lords], the Housing Associations Bill [Lords], the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Landlord and Tenant Bill [Lords]. They will now be taken on Tuesday, 29 October.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I welcome the statement by the Leader of the House? It is important to preserve the rights of the House of Commons in such matters.

Weights and Measures Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

REGULATIONS AS TO INFORMATION

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 25, line 25, leave out 'this section' and insert 'section 21 or 22 above'.
This corrects a mistake in subsection (1)(f).

Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is important that the House should be able to satisfy itself that genuine consolidation is intended. I am convinced that this does involve genuine consolidation and that we should agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 13 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Football Grounds (Financial Assistance)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybriclge and Hyde): First, I offer my congratulations and, I am sure, those of the entire House to the new Minister with responsibility for sport. I am sure that he would have preferred to make his ministerial debut at a better hour, but we wish him well in the two years or so ahead of him. In so doing, sports lovers on both sides of the House should also extend our very best wishes to the Minister's predecessor now that he has gone to the Back Benches to recharge his batteries. I hope that we shall have as cordial a relationship with the new Minister as we had with his predecessor.
This is a serious debate. It concerns the future of our national game, association football, and it concerns literally millions of our fellow countrymen, whether they be Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats, Labour supporters or those who do not even vote at all. As most football supporters realise, it would be political suicide for any Government to set out to kill our national game, but at the moment it looks very much as though that game is in jeopardy as a result of Government action.
We can all be critical—I certainly can—of the way in which soccer is organised in this country. It is a product of 19th century Britain. Clubs have grown like Topsy around old-established industries of yesteryear and are desperately hanging on to their former glory. No doubt the football league structure should be rationalised, but to try to do this through the blunt instrument of Government edict would be folly indeed.
As one who has studied the football scene over many years, I have observed a clear breakthrough from the patterns of thinking and attitudes which prevailed hitherto in soccer. A new leadership has emerged in the game determined to rid football of the image that it is still living in the last century. Many of the new leaders are chairmen and senior directors of our leading clubs — Martin Edwards of Manchester United, Irving Scholar of Spurs and John Smith of Liverpool, also chairman of the Sports Council. The new president of the football league, Jack Dunnett, formerly a Member of this House, has also breathed new life and vitality into the game. All of them see a new and exciting concept of what genuine football fans require and expect from their clubs. More important, they have taken positive steps to deliver a new and better environment in which those fans can watch their favourite game, free from the risk of disruption from the small hooligan element.
The evidence is all about us. In the first division, Tottenham Hotspur has recently installed a new 13-camera closed circuit television system, erected additional fences and anti-hooligan roll bars in the visiting supporters' area. Southampton has constructed a police control box at a cost of approximately £25,000 and an additional crowd segregation barrier costing £4,000. Newcastle United has provided additional emergency exits at a cost of approximately £100,000 and further improvements estimated at between £300,000 and £500,000.
I could cite many more top clubs, but the same applies to all the divisions. In the third division, small York City


has taken considerable measures to provide for safety at its ground, including new exits, turnstiles, staircases, toilet accommodation and fencing costing about £200,000. I could give many more examples. As I am sure that the Minister knows, the sums involved range from a massive £7 million at Bradford, for obvious reasons, to £15,000 at Chelsea and at Middlesbrough. In between, there are clubs such as Doncaster Rovers spending £365,000 and Portsmouth spending £250,000.
Unfortunately for football, the hooligan element in society has attached itself to the game in some numbers, for obvious reasons. The hooligans have decided that in terms of the coverage that they can get out of it, disrupting our national sport is far more productive than hitting old ladies over the head in local shopping precincts. Football has acquired a bad name because of that fringe element. Any Government would be failing in their duty if they did not address themselves to the recent problems in Brussels, Birmingham, Luton and elsewhere, where either because of unruly behaviour or because of inadequate grounds and safety facilities the game has been brought into disrepute. Following the Bradford fire disaster in which 56 people were tragically killed because of the antiquated stand and less than perfect safety precautions, it was right to establish the Popplewell inquiry. However, the Government introduced the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 in great haste and without prior discussion with interested parties. They have not addressed themselves to the real problems of the hooliganism in football.
The evidence is clear—the Act is not working. What many said at the time has come true. There is no evidence to suggest that the sale or consumption of alcohol at football grounds has been responsible for any large-scale acts of hooliganism. The matches that led the Government into that foolish legislation—Brussels, Birmingham and Luton—were all played in dry grounds when the trouble occurred.
Since the Bill became law, Liverpool football club has reported that a factor of 4·6 people were arrested outside its stadium and that only a factor of 2·6 were arrested in it during the 1984–85 season. After seven games this year, the figures are 2·4 and 0·3 respectively. Those statistics can be repeated for ground after ground. The main problem lies, as we always said, outside football grounds. Thanks to the Act, off licences, supermarkets and pubs around grounds are doing a roaring trade. Football is the poorer financially and I suspect that football fans are merrier as they go through turnstiles than they were before the Act was introduced.
The Football League has estimated that the annual loss of income from alcohol sales will be £1·5 million in addition to the £4 million that accrues to certain clubs from the leasing of executive boxes. The Act is not helping football; rather the opposite is true.
Crystal Palace football club reports that, previously, every match was sold to a sponsor until the Act came into effect, whereupon every sponsor withdrew. It has been a revenue disaster for that club. Manchester United reports a loss of £3,000 per match because of the loss of private box catering, and it anticipates further financial catastrophe next year when the majority of its executive boxes are up for renewal because of dissatisfaction among box holders at their inability to entertain guests acceptably.

Chelsea football club reports that only five out of 30 boxes are definitely taken up next season and estimates a loss of £390,000 for that season. Newcastle United has expressed fear at the fact that 18 of its 20 boxes are up for renewal at the end of the season. Aston Villa reports the loss of £100,000 in catering revenue and match sponsorship and fears a possible loss of £300,000 next season due to the loss of more box renewals. Out of 60 boxes, 15 are up for renewal.
During the passage of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), promised me that he would monitor the workings of the Act after some five months into the season. That is not this Minister's responsibility, but the effects of the Act are. The season is already two and a half months old and fair warning has been given to the Government that matters are unacceptable. The entire league is expressing extreme disgust and anger at the futile attempts that the Government have made to deal with the real issue. Corporations and box holders — most of them good Conservative supporters—have withdrawn their support.
I am happy to report that the Minister of State has responded to my invitation to go to Manchester United next week to see for himself the nonsenses that the legislation has brought about. It must be amended. If Mr. Justice Popplewell's final judgment is in line with his interim report—much of which, of course, is acceptable —it will cost clubs a lot of money. Some will simply not be able to conform. It is ironic that the clubs that have long recognised the main arguments of Popplewell are the main sufferers from the legislation. Those who have helped pay for the safety improvements at their grounds are the very clubs that are now being clobbered. As clubs take constructive action to increase police presence and security measures, gate receipts from attendances and corporation revenue are decreasing due to the adverse publicity that the game has attracted. In the first division, gates are down by about 10·5 per cent. on last season. They are down by 9 per cent. over all the divisions.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Is it being suggested that the Act is the cause of the fall in gate receipts; and, if so, why?

Mr. Pendry: I was not advancing that argument. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is a keen football supporter and he has been active in helping the game overcome some of its problems. I was saying that, because of the hooligan element, the problems that are associated with the game and the high profile that they assume, there are many people who are not passing through the turnstiles. The Act is not helping clubs overcome some of the problems because gate receipts have declined, but declining attendances are nothing to do with the Act directly.
Manchester City football club has reported to me that it is erecting a perimeter fence at a cost of about £50,000. The local authority is insisting that the club carries out work at the cost of £100,000. The club estimates that it will be out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds by the end of the season. Tottenham Hotspur projects that it will experience a decrease of £225,000 on last year's takings. It claims that the position will worsen as the season continues.
Football is in a crisis, and for the most part that is not of its own making. Its plight has been made worse by


recent Government action. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will not trot out the old chestnuts that were borne by civil servants before he arrived at the Department. We do not want remedies such as sponsorship of the FA cup, an FA membership scheme where 250,000 players, amateur and professional, would have to be levied, fund-raising matches and further competitions. We all know now that there are too many matches and too many competitions. The Full Members' Cup is very poorly attended, for example. We have heard about video matches of games. Is that really an option at a time of declining gates? I do not know who thinks of these schemes, but they are not produced by genuine football lovers or those who understand the game.
I hope that the Minister will address himself to declining gates, the losses that clubs have suffered following the introduction of the Act, expenditure following the Popplewell report and the expenditure on identity cards, on which the Prime Minister is insisting. These are the areas to which the Minister must address himself. The Government must positively assist football financially in one or two of four respects. They should amend the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act, reduce the pool betting levy by at least 1 per cent., which would yield £5 million to football, make a direct grant to overcome current problems or introduce a pool betting levy board. I know that that is in line with the Prime Minister's philosophy of money being regenerated within an industry. It would be an example of football helping itself, bearing in mind that the football pools provide so much revenue to the Exchequer.
I know that the Minister is aware of these arguments and there is not time at this hour of the morning fully to rehearse them. I hope that he will address himself to the crisis areas. The football world requires and even demands of its new Minister, who is charged with the responsibility of its health and welfare, a positive approach to the problems that are facing the game.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his kind words of congratulation and welcome, and for inspiring this debate on an important topic—safety and sport. Those two words do not feature in the title that he has given to this debate, but I think he will agree that they are our prime concerns. They are the right and true ends of the Government's interests and endeavours and, I hope, of all of us involved in the debate.
I should tell the hon. Gentleman at the outset that the timing of this debate is appropriate if his objective is to lobby the Government. However, it is not appropriate if he hopes to have firm conclusions or decisions from me. I shall explain where we have got to, first giving the House the necessary background, and I shall then look forward to what appear to be the best outcomes for the sport of football from the crises of recent months.
The House is well aware of the crises of recent months and of why those crises attracted the concerned attention of the Prime Minister and the Government. Those events brought British football to its darkest hour. Since then the Government have been in discussion with the football authorities about the measures to be taken to combat the problems of hooliganism and to restore public confidence in the safety of football grounds. I think that everyone will

agree that we have acted with speed and with the utmost concern to achieve the necessary changes and improvements in the grounds and in behaviour.
Perhaps I can concentrate principally on the safety issues as they are the main concern of the hon. Gentleman. After the Bradford tragedy, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary took a number of immediate steps. He extended designations under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 to all clubs in divisions 3 and 4 of the Football League. He asked chief fire officers to inspect all sports grounds, and he set up the inquiry under Mr. Justice Popplewell to consider and recommend any further steps that should be taken to improve ground safety and control at sports grounds. Subsequently the Home Secretary extended designations under the Act to the top two divisions of the Rugby League.
In taking these measures, the Government were not unaware of the financial implications for football clubs. But, after Bradford, our primary concern was, and still remains, the safety of spectators. The House will, I am sure, agree that this must be the Government's first priority.
But we recognised the potential problems for football. Thus, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up a working group, which I now chair, to consider the programme of work for safety improvements and how this might be funded. This working group's considerations have been careful and thorough, and have taken full account of the scale of the need and the problem, and of the resources available.
Our most recent meeting took place last week on 16 October. The group first set out to establish the overall scale and costs of the safety improvement work needed at the football grounds. For this assessment, the Prime Minister asked the chairman of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, Mr. Tom Wharton, if a survey could be carried out speedily. It is to the credit of Mr. Wharton and of his trust that this survey was not only carried out immediately but with considerable efficiency and thoroughness, and that at no stage did the chairman or trustees seek Government funds for the task. The trust's survey looked at all grounds in the Football League and the Scottish League, including those already designated under the Act, and gave estimates of the work required at each, and, from those assessments, gave an indication of the likely total cost.
The working group found that a very valuable input to its considerations. However, it recognised that the scale and costs of the work could be altered as a result of either the inspections around the country by the chief fire officers or action following Sir Oliver Popplewell's interim report.
In giving the House my assessment of the current position, let me first deal with the Government's concerns about safety on behalf of the whole community. Here I speak on behalf of the Home Secretary, whose primary responsibility this is. We strongly maintain that the Government have responded to the public concern about safety at football grounds in the wake of the Bradford fire. We have had the inspections by the chief fire officers, and the local authorities have now issued certificates to all the newly designated League clubs.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. Once designated, clubs must apply to their local authorities for a safety certificate; the safety needs and possible improvements are then assessed; but certificates can be issued in advance of those


improvements being carried out through the imposition of restrictions on crowd numbers, and perhaps on access to particular parts of the ground. Such restrictions can be lifted as and when the improvements are made and a fresh certificate issued. All grounds now have safety certificates, many of them containing restrictions on attendances.
It is important to stress that the restrictions imposed on attendances at matches are not necessarily impractical or unrealistic. The opposite is perhaps the case. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that many of our football grounds were built to entertain vastly larger crowds than clubs can expect to draw now. There has been only one instance this season—in Scotland—of a larger crowd arriving for a match than could be allowed in under the restrictions in force.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that it follows that clubs should plan their ground improvements on a similar realistic basis. It would be nonsense for clubs with average gates of about 1,000 to claim financial help for expensive improvements aiming at crowds of 30,000.
The report received by my working group from the Football Grounds Improvement Trust last week made it clear that its approach to clubs has been on that realistic basis. The trust bases its grants to clubs on their recent history of attendances. Most of all, that means that they must tailor their investment to the cloth of their market potential.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Football Trust grants are being paid in reasonably good time? One hears stories of clubs having to pay for improvements and wait a considerable time for the grants.

Mr. Tracey: I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all that we can to make good that point. I was about to deal with the timescale for the improvements to grounds.
My working group considered last week how soon the programme of safety improvements needed to be carried out. The consensus was that five years was a reasonable timescale. As I have already said, the immediate safety concern has been met by restrictions placed on grounds by the responsible local authorities. Decisions on how quickly to bring forward improvement works are therefore for football itself, and especially for the clubs. But such decisions are for them to make and to justify in normal business terms.
The working group has not yet reached any final conclusions; I cannot as yet, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman any Government decisons. But it looks likely that the Football Grounds Improvement Trust will be able to fund the major share of the costs of the safety improvements sought by clubs within a period of five years. That seems to the working group to be a reasonable period. This is not yet to close the door. Some uncertainties remain, and we shall consider further the final recommendations of Mr. Justice Popplewell.
I should say that there is another important consideration on which the working group spent some time last week. That is the contribution that the game of football can make. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about the lack of money in many parts of football; he would also accept that this is not due in all cases to bad luck. Like any business, football must take

responsibility for its own mistakes and for its own problems. The governing bodies — the Football Association and the Football League—have a lead to give here, and we discussed within the working group possible ways by which they might raise new money for the game, or redistribute, for safety improvements, some of the existing income. I assure the hon. Gentleman that some leading figures in football agree with some of the ideas that he appeared to condemn at the beginning of the debate. Of course, the decisions are for the clubs, not for me; but the House would expect any responsible Government to take account of what people in a commercial industry are prepared to do for themselves in decisions about dispensing taxpayers' money.
May I deal now with two of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman—first, the so-called tax burden, which is regularly mentioned in the press and in football. The betting duty on the pools is not a tax on football, as many would have us believe. It is a tax on gambling, and any reduction in the tax would directly benefit the pools promoters, and presumably their customers, rather than football. We also hear about a Government-created levy board.
As regards a Government-created levy board, I must point out that such a body—albeit a voluntary one—already exists, in the Football Trust. I can only praise the work and contribution of the Football Trust.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman discussed the question of the alcohol legislation and its effect on clubs' finances. he is aware why this House, after much discussion, decided not to exclude executive boxes from the controls on alcohol. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has been mentioned, undertook to review that point and he will do so. What he requires—I have his full authority to say this—is sound evidence from the football authorities and clubs, which has not yet been provided. When it is, I assure the House that my hon. Friend will study it carefully.
Let me close with some general comments, which look forward a little. The game has been hit hard in recent years, and in particular in the past six months. It is now very much at the crossroads. The twin concerns of safety and security to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks must be dealt with. To use a well-known phrase, there is no alternative.
I want to encourage football forward, and I echo what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on many occasions about the need to involve the family and the community. Families can be involved in football as much as in other matters. Many parents are now frightened to take their children to matches, and even more frightened to let them go on their own. Much damage has been done to the image of the game. There is a need for fresh ideas and marketing. I appeal to the clubs to consider much more closely the role that the family and the community can play. Many clubs have already introduced successfully family enclosures. The examples are well known. I commend them to all football clubs. I commend, for example, the FA's scheme at Wembley, and I am aware that some League clubs have successful schemes of community use of their facilities, for example, Fulham and Arsenal. Oxford United has recently concluded an agreement with the local council whereby its staff engage in community activities in return for financial assistance from the authority. I would like to see these ideas and thoughts extended.
For me, the game and the clubs need to get back into the community. The activities do not need to be large-scale, and the precious grass on pitches can be protected. But clubs can use their local reputations, skills and facilities to aid and develop community programmes with local schools, pensioners groups, youth organisations and clubs and so on. As sports Minister, I have a double interest here. We need new facilities and opportunities for sport and recreation. I see a potential marriage here of

great value. Football needs the support of the community, and the community needs more facilities and opportunities for recreation. It would also benefit from more involvement in the football club, established for so many generations as a magnet for local interest and support. I welcome the signs that hands are reaching out to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Four o' clock.